| After 160 years in existence, Union College eliminates the Civil Engineering Department. |
The following letters were published in the Concordiensis, Union College's student newspaper
Letter to the Editor (April 12, 2001)
The Challenger Disaster and the Proposed Destruction of Civil Engineering
In 1990 Union College hosted a Harvard educator who had researched the events that had been most influential in forming the attitudes and world views of college students. Over the previous 50 years the defining experiences had been the Depression, World War II, the threat of nuclear weapons, the Viet Nam War and Civil Rights.
The most mentioned event for the class of 1994 was the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger, and the death of seven including high school science teacher Christa McAuliffe. This failure happened in January of 1986 when these students were entering high school at their teen age years.
Because of the low air temperature and brittleness of crucial seals the engineers at the rocket company gave managers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administrators a unanimous recommendation to postpone the launch. However, there were budget and political pressures on NASA to launch. The State of the Union message was scheduled for that evening. The President was expected to praise the space program and feature the high school teacher who would be doing experiments in space. Most of the world would see the subsequent explosion. NASA programs are still suffering from the irresponsible decision to launch.
The tentative plan to eliminate Civil Engineering which is rated in the top ten nationally is similarly irresponsible. It is the oldest engineering program in a liberal arts college. Its alumni have been highly successful and generous donors. Women and minorities are well represented.
The Civil engineering faculty is excellent in teaching and research. Civil Engineering Professor Ashraf Ghaly has been recognized as Union's Outstanding Professor. The most favorable national and local publicity that our college has received during the last year has resulted from the Erie Canal research of Professor Andrew Wolfe. Civil engineering has also successfully integrated courses and programs with the History and Sociology Departments.
All of the Union College community including students, staff, faculty, families and alumni should contemplate the direct and synergistic value of Civil Engineering. They should recognize that destroying Civil Engineering will cause serious collateral damage to all of Union College, and determine how they can most effectively act to prevent its destruction.
Professor Frank Wicks, Mechanical Engineering
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (April 19, 2001)
Truthful Fiction
A judge is presiding over a trial. The jury is in place. The defendant is behind bars. What exactly the defendant is accused of is unknown. The judge never read the charge against the defendant. A date is set for the trial to begin. A member of the jury feels that the case against the defendant can be strengthened if an expert or team of experts is hired to come up with an opinion to ultimately convict the defendant. The juror makes funds available to the judge to hire a team of experts recommended by the juror. The team works closely with the judge, the juror, and the defense counsel. The defendant is never given a chance to be represented in any communications with the expert team, the judge, or the juror. The defendant expresses concern to the defense counsel that the defense strategy seems mysterious. The defense counsel assures the defendant that everything is being done to present the case in the best light. Even though doubtful, the defendant has no option but to go along. In the first phase of the trial the judge recognizes the defense counsel. The defense counsel makes a comprehensive presentation to the jury in which the stage is set for a conclusion. In the closing remarks, the defense counsel recommends that the defendant be put to death. The defendant is stunned that this recommendation could be made by the defense counsel and begs for justice. The judge declares that the court is in agreement with the defense counsel's recommendation. The judge also states that the expert team also supported the death penalty recommendation. The defendant calls on friends and those who are concerned to stand for what is right. Letters of support pour in with copies to the judge, the defense counsel, and the members of the jury. The letters highlight the contribution the defendant has made to the advancement of society and how this led to national recognition. Although there is no official charge against the defendant, and pouring letters of support urge the judge to spare the defendant; the judge indicates that the defendant still has to die. The hope, the only hope for the defendant, is that in the second phase of trial the majority of the members of the jury will reject the death penalty recommendation based on the overwhelming evidence in the defendant's favor, and call for an overhaul of the system that convicted the defendant before the trial was even begun, and without even reading a charge.
If the story above sounds like excessive fiction, do not be surprised to learn that it is an absolute truth. The defendant in this story is the Civil Engineering Department. How can we allow this to happen at Union College?
Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (April 19, 2001)
A parable tells of the parents who were desperate to improve their standing in the neighborhood by having more superior children to brag about. Since they were resource limited they devised a plan that would kill a good and loyal child and then adopt one that might be more exciting.
Fortunately, the condemned child was well respected by his brothers and sisters. They understood he was a crucial member of the functional family. The child had also made many friends with good work in the community. All united together to convince the parents not to execute. Instead they persuaded the parents to both save the child and adopt a new child. All worked together in the pursuit of more fame and excellence. The parents were relieved their flawed plan had been successfully challenged.
Some administrators at Union College have suggested the elimination of the 156 year old Civil Engineering Department. It is rated in the top ten nationally and is the oldest engineering program in any liberal arts college. The reason is to make room for Converging Technologies for a Changing World. In response, students, faculty, staff, alumni and friends have become energized and united in calling for Union College to retain and enhance Civil Engineering. It always has been and always will be a vital contributor to developing civilizations and a changing world.
All but one of the 25 engineering faculty members from Electrical, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Mechanical and Civil engineering have signed a petition that asks Union College to preserve Civil engineering while effectively embracing new opportunities. It is vital that all members of the community continue to make their best and most effective efforts to assure the continued excellence of Civil Engineering and of Union College.
Professor Frank Wicks, Mechanical Engineering
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (April 19, 2001)
Motivation to Cut Civil Engineering Criticized
Last week I had the privilege of speaking to President Hull about the prospect of eliminating Civil Engineering. Mr. Hull provided much the same information that is already available about U2K, but several things mentioned were indicative to me, and were also left unanswered (the phone call was after 5:00 PM so time was short, perhaps). I offered to see him in person to continue the discussion, so we'll see what transpires then.
As a mild surprise came the comment that some trustees (no capital T from me!) are pressuring to eliminate Engineering altogether. Mr. Hull stated that he did not wish to see anything discontinued. When asked if giving was down, or funds deflated by recent markets, or whether the College was in general fiscal difficulty, his answer was an emphatic 'no'. When I challenged him as a leader then to fight for 99.999% of Engineering instead of 89% (as I would do), he had no answer.
Engineering and technology are expensive. I recently visited Microsoft in Redmond and job openings there are going anywhere from $55K to $108K. You have to be committed to engage in technology. It seems that Union is committed to the extent of keeping expenditures for technology relatively flat in proportion to the rest of things. When the elimination of departments is necessary, this indicates to me Dean Balmer's targets are way too high, an exaggerated situation of 'do more with less', plain and simple.
Secondly, and again unanswered, was the 'muddied picture' factor (politically correct terminology here). The President stated he'd '... wished there had been' a CE on the GLEAN Team. When asked why there wasn't, he replied ` ... we didn't think they were ready at the time'. Is 'we' Dean Balmer? Dean Balmer and President Hull? The team assembled to make a decision about the CE Department? I have spoken to non – CE faculty relatives who state flatly that eliminating CE is a ' ... done deal' and ' ... what did I think <they> hadn't been telling me about for the last six months'. Apparently some individuals have unusual a priori insights (or are merely expressing relief over survival ???). This `muddied' and behind the scenes factor is really untoward, and it bothers more persons than myself.
The last issue was a direct question to the President on how I (and persons with the same opinion) could be heard in this process, since it was assuredly not a `done deal' in his mind. Conspicuous by its absence was a comment similar to “... you are doing that with this phone call”. It seems some things are a done deal, after all! To be fair to the President, he did mention an upcoming letter to all Engineering alums and that he supported Dean Balmer, but made no effort to offer me an avenue for input.
At this juncture I proposed an input – closing my wallet to Union this year. If anyone else feels as strongly, I urge you to do the same thing. I was told that I ' ... should give to the school no matter what I thought'. I replied that opening my wallet was my decision, and had to seriously restrain some good – natured ribbing of his statement (I am an engineer, remember, so social skills are always at a premium with guys like me, or so they say!). Indeed, if Union is going to discontinue portions of Engineering, I don't want to give. If Union is going to rely increasingly on grant money for Engineering, I'd be better off giving to research institutions like RPI (which I attend currently). Here's the reality – give me a reason to pull the plug on giving by abandoning things I believe in (like CE) and I'll oblige – if we're going to have a `real world' of highly constricted financials for Engineering, I've got a 'real world' perspective on whether I am confident of where my money is going! Give to an Engineering department that has to cut pieces away to make progress or survive ? Am I certain 'cut loose Engineering burdens' isn't a precedent? Am I assured that nano – thinking, `the next great revolution', will cause Union to leapfrog competitors, or is it the only banner `marketable' enough to protect ME and EE ? Am I guaranteed under these changes that the same personalized instruction I benefited from won't dissolve beneath ambitions for research grants and opportunities in the face of continued financial pressures on Engineering ? If not, my funds become 'venture capital', as same speculative prospects of worthwhile return for all involved ... that buzzword goes, with the same speculative prospects of worthwhile return for all involved ...
Mike Moore - EE 1989, 1992
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (April 26, 2001)
Purposeful Killing
You probably have heard about Jodie and Mary. They are the twin baby girls who were born attached with one heart and one set of lungs. The parents of these babies sought doctors' advice as to what should be done to secure normal lives for their babies. The doctors made it clear that if nothing is done both babies would die. They also indicated that, based on physical examination, Jodie's chance for a normal life is better than that of Mary's. To save Jodie, Mary's life will be the price. The parents reject the notion that one of their babies will have to die to save the other, especially as there is no guarantee that either will live. The parents refuse to allow the doctors to operate on their babies. Debate about the issue heats up in society. Courts intervene to save Jodie, who the doctors say will definitely die if Mary is remained attached to her. Judges agonize over options. The parents believe that both babies could be saved and urge the doctors to find a way to do it. Doctors declare there is no way. The court gives the go ahead for the doctors to save Jodie at Mary's expense, over the objection of the parents. The operation is done and Mary dies. Jodie is in critical condition and is closely monitored. No one knows if she will survive but all are hoping for the best.
Pointless Killing
Civil Engineering (CE) is the oldest, and Mechanical Engineering (ME) the youngest of three grown up sisters. Electrical Engineering (EE) is the second of the three sisters. Society takes a lot of pride in the three sisters' success. Society is specially proud of the oldest and youngest sisters who achieved national recognition. The parents adopted a little baby and called it Computer Science (CS). They asked EE to take care of the baby, but EE has resources to barely take care of herself. Baby CS was born unhealthy and was constantly hungry. Doctors say baby CS is suffering from malnutrition and should be well fed. The parents say they have no resources to feed baby CS. Doctors recommend that aunt Natural Science (NS) be given CS where the baby really belongs. The parents say baby CS has to stay with EE. The parents think hard to find a way to save baby CS's life. Our daughter CE is too old, let's slay her and give her heart and blood to baby CS, the parents decide. EE and ME, aunt NS, and society are horrified by the parents' decision, and the way it is made. Even baby CS declares that CE's life should not be the price for my strengthening. Parents insist that CE still have to be sacrificed to save baby CS. CE and her many friends beg the parents for mercy and tell them that CE's heart and blood type do not match those of baby CS, and this may in fact result in the death of both of them. EE and ME say if our sister CE dies, our deep grief may very well lead to our death. It does not matter, say the parents, CE must die to experiment with her organs.
How disturbing! Jodie and Mary's parents fight relentlessly to save both the healthy and the unhealthy sisters, while the parents of CE mercilessly kill their healthy daughter for an adventurous experimentation. Whose organs are next?
Sincerely,
Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (April 26, 2001)
For those interested, any documents related to the Civil Engineering “Crisis” can be found at the web-site . There you can find electronic copies of any discussions and letter about the situations confronting the CE department and the Engineering Division as a whole.
Somewhere between the drop from the 7th best Civil Engineering department in the country to the 8th, came the decree that changes needed to be made. A revolution of the curriculum was deemed the only way to “save” the engineering division at Union College. We are told that we are in the position of a drowning sailor, grasping for anything to stay afloat, that death is imminent, barring a miracle. But the truth of the matter is that our Engineering Division is not drowning, simply swimming in the vast ocean of undergraduate engineering programs. We are always looking for ways to further ourselves, but we can still afford to make informed decisions and strategic initiatives.
Dean Balmer has sold the new Convergent Technologies for a Changing World (CTCW) to the Board of Trustees as the wave of the future, the all-encompassing curriculum which will vault Union College into the upper echelon of undergraduate engineering programs. There are many major fallacies with his presentation. One is the position of the college. Another is with the ranks of individual departments/divisions of the college. A third lies within the “reason” for change, resources. A fourth is in the exclusion of Civil Engineering from any future at Union College.
When Dean Balmer asserts that Union is already headed in this direction, I have to question him. Yes, the “smart-car” is convergent technology, but that is one class, of one program. By the same token we could say that the college is on the way to becoming theological seminary, because as freshman we take Freshman Preceptorial and read parts from the Bible. The greater issue however is that this college was/is not “designed” for, capable of, or advertised as a cutting edge technology school. I don't know about how you were sold on Union, but personally I was told that `Union is a small Liberal Arts College with a strong Engineering Program.' We are a school which teaches the fundamentals so adeptly that graduates can handle any situation which may face them during graduate school or employment. This point has been one the most prevalent in the alumni responses.
As for the ranks of the departments, as a whole the division ranks 20th in the nation, including the 7th ranked Mechanical Engineering department and 8th ranked Civil department; immediate action, should include the furthering of these departments, not cutbacks or elimination. The elimination of Civil Engineering to better the overall rank of the Division is the equivalent of killing one the strongest competitors of an athletic team, so that the weaker/unproven performers have more opportunities to play. It doesn't work, with the noted exception of Lou Gherig.
The resource based reasoning is the laughing stock of the entire debate. For a division/college with resource problems, the direction to go is not towards a brand new high-technology curriculum. Especially a curriculum which has had trouble succeeding at highly funded and large research institutions such as Penn State at College Park, the University of Tennessee. And counter to the smoke-screen that the elimination of Civil will provide faculty lines, only two additional line will be created, out the of the six necessary to implement the plan; since four of the six are here until they retire.
Almost as humorous as the previous fallacy, is the exclusion of Civil Engineering from converging technologies, see MIT's web-site about convergent technologies, it says more than I could even argue for the inclusion of CE with convergent technologies.
“The role of civil and environmental engineers is rapidly expanding. The integration of financial, social, economic and policy issues is now part of the professional responsibility of civil and environmental engineers. The education of professionals in the discipline must consider this system-wide view of engineering.” web.mit.edu/civenv/html/about_contact/strategic_plan.html
Dean Balmer's “vision” has merely converged Division IV (Engineering and Computer Science) with Division III (Natural Sciences), leaving out Divisions I and II (Humanities and Social Sciences). Thus further limiting the interaction between the Divisions. If one takes the time to look at current and proposed curriculums by the CE department, and compares them to any other Division IV department, you'll find a large disparity in inter-divisional courses and terms abroad.
By nature a Civil Engineer works with people (hence the root civil), and interacts with them in every aspect of their lives. Whether it is in the buildings that you live or work in, the roads and bridges which get you to and from those buildings, or the water which pours from your taps and leaves from your toilets. Should a Liberal Arts college embrace a curriculum which pushes them away, or includes them and honors the over 156 years of tradition. I emphatically side with the latter.
Jonathan Neiman CE '01
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (April 26, 2001)
Civil Engineers Manage the Largest Projects
During World War II the United States came out of a decade of economic depression and with amazing rapidity invented, designed and manufactured the equipment that ultimately won the war. The United States was called the “Arsenal of Democracy” that provided the fighting men with the equipment that saved the free world.
The vehicles, aircraft, guns, radar, ships and ultimately the atomic bomb required the best efforts of mechanical, electrical and civil engineers. It was the Civil engineers who were best trained to handle the largest projects.
Henry Kaiser became known as the “Henry Ford of Shipbuilding”. He was born near Schenectady in 1881 to an impoverished shoe maker. Starting as a traveling photographer he turned to civil engineering because of the invention of the automobile and the need for paved roads. He proceeded to build bridges and dams while pioneering ever more efficient construction and management techniques. With WWII he extended these techniques to the rapid mass production of the ships that were vital for victory.
The Manhattan project that produced the atom bomb that ended the war with Japan was conceived and designed by about 30 notable physicists, but it was also a huge civil engineering project that involved 150,000 people in New Mexico, Washington and Tennessee. It was directed by Albany native and civil engineer General Leslie Groves.
While civil engineering may not receive its due recognition, it has provided the infrastructure that has been vital to national security and peacetime civilizations since the Roman Empire. Our present challenge is to preserve and strengthen the 156 year old Civil Engineering program at Union College for the benefit of our students and society.
Professor Frank Wicks, Mechanical Engineering
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 3, 2001)
Civil Engineering Elimination Makes No Sense
Nonsense, 20th Century Style
In 1899, Charles Duell, the commissioner of the US Patent Office recommended to the federal government that his office be shut down because "everything that can be invented, has been invented". Today, more than a century after this recommendation was made, the patent office is still open and millions of patents have been registered. The recommendation to shut down the patent office came from the head of this federal agency at the dawn of the technological revolution. There are two possible explanations why this recommendation was made more than a hundred years ago; (1) this person was so impressed by what had been invented up to that time and believed that nothing superior could ever be invented, or (2) this person was seriously short sighted and lacked good judgment. Today, more than a hundred years later, it can be concluded that either or both of the above two reasons could be valid. Fortunately, the proposed recommendation was never adopted.
Nonsense, 21st Century Style
A scenario similar to the patent office situation is currently unfolding at Union College where the elimination of the Civil Engineering Department is recommended. The reason? A direction for engineering called "converging technologies" is proposed, and the proposer believes that civil engineering is the "least consistent" with this direction. Before one can pass judgment on civil engineering as a profession, one needs to learn more about the issue. What do civil engineers do anyway? Simply put, civil engineers are those responsible for the quality of everyday life. The following are just a few examples of civil engineering creation: clean air, pure water, roads, bridges, airports, railroads, dams, traffic signals, power generating facilities, sky scrapers, houses, hospitals, houses of worship, educational and research institutions, entertainment complexes ... etc. Civil engineers do much more, and in fact, some of the most important civil engineering work is done underground; sewer collection and treatment systems, and garbage disposal and storage systems. Sounds dirty? Thank goodness for civil engineers who take care of this "dirty business" to ensure the cleanliness that keeps us all healthy. Civil engineers are in the heart, if they are not the heart, of the technological revolution. The environment, recycling, and the infrastructure which comprises our basic service structures such as roads, bridges, and utilities networks are issues people appreciate, and use and talk about everyday. Civil engineers apply the latest technologies to ensure that humanity enjoys quality of life. Civil engineering is the only engineering discipline with social, economical, political, environmental, and cultural dimensions, and it naturally and effortlessly blends with the Liberal Arts. If you do not feel the presence of civil engineers in your daily life, this is the very evidence of their success in designing smoothly running facilities. Remember, you only think of, and are bothered by, things that are troublesome.
No Nonsense Responsibility
A hundred years ago, decision makers were decisive in rejecting the recommendation to shut down the patent office because they knew it was nonsense. Today's decision makers must be no less decisive in rejecting the recommendation to abolish the Civil Engineering Department at Union College. History will not be so kind if nonsense is allowed to prevail.
Sincerely,
Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 3, 2001)
For those of you who read my article last week, I hope that I managed to convey the point that Civil Engineering should remain at Union College, regardless of any new initiatives. My point this week is in how half-baked the decision making process was. Yes, life is not fair, but even in war there are rules. These rules exist so that the human race will not perish for the sake of a couple of nations. These are the exact reasons why the three-ring circle of checks and balances exists in the US Government. Getting closer to the point, the rules exist so that imprudent and foolhardy ideas do not destroy an institution; be it a college, university, or our government.
The first process of making a decision has to be evaluating the situation clearly. Problem Statement: Try to “fix” engineering to set-it-apart from other schools, especially the two other ones like us in the nation. Solution: Hire a group of outside consultants with no background in academics or Engineering from Stanford to study engineering, and then lie to the faculty about the true nature of the study (that Civil Engineering needs to go). Once the group “studied” the facts and came to a conclusion, tell them that they cannot produce a negative report and withhold some of the money until they change it. Once the report arrives, maybe the illiterate engineers won't pick-up on the fact that the entire report sides with them, and only focus on the 180 the Glean Team did to encompass Dean Blamer's idea(l)s.
Second Problem Statement: Where to get necessary money. Solution: Bring in a representative from everything, except Civil Engineering, to determine the plusses and minuses of certain programs. Hello, McFly anybody in there? Imagine what would happen if I had to include you on my decision making process, (I probably wouldn't be writing this letter) we'd probably have killed my idea long before I presented it to the Board.” (Sorry, I enjoy movies, that was Dean Balmer playing the part of Biff, and the CE department playing Marty McFly). No where along the way was any Civil Engineering faculty or student included in any decision making process, until maybe now, after months of nagging and pestering to let us in the door.
Third Problem Statement: How to handle the negative image that the elimination of a department will cause the school. Solution: Unknown. Only thing that I know is that Dean Balmer should never be trusted to send a letter out to anyone. I have talked to parents of perspective students, whom received the “eloquent” letter of the Dean of Engineering, and they have asked me who the heck was running the show over at Union College. They literally told me that he sounded incompetent and dumb, that is verbatim from many of the parents I have encountered. His letter did nothing but put more smoke into the already murky water that is the plan to eliminate Civil Engineering.
An aside to the Board of Trustees, the students, and faculty are united in their concern with how decisions were made and the effects of this decision on the college. Be wary should a vote, amongst faculty trustees, show faculty division, because the shame of it all would be to have the only member of the Engineering division supporting this decision portray a fifty-fifty split in the faculty. Also ask Dean Balmer how much and what his Convergent Technologies platform really is, a new direction or a couple of electives.
On a completely different side of the story... this past weekend, if you read the article about the ASCE competitions at West Point, is the precise reason why the Civil Engineering Department at Union College needs to remain. Can you imagine a world where everything was the same; every bridge was designed to ugly, but effective standards? This is the world that faces us. This past weekend, the only design that truly was appealing was designed by our very own students. We came up with an innovative design; it blew everyone's mind, causing them to question how they looked at the problem at hand, and how they showed their creativity.
The schools we competed against were severely lacking in the Liberal Arts side of their education, schools such as RPI, Clarkson and other big name engineering schools, and it showed in their simple I-beam solution to the bridge design. What sets our engineering department and students apart from the million of other engineers graduating each year is our perspective. We are highly sought after, for both our technical brains and our incredible knack for seeing the entire picture. Our graduates are able to handle problems which they have never encountered, and were never taught, simply because we know that the solution is only a couple of logical steps away. This is why our graduates not only have an easy “job” finding employment, but also have an amazing track record for quick promotion.
Jonathan Neiman CE '01
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Civil Engineering Cartoon, Courtesy of Concordiensis (May 3, 2001)
 |
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 10, 2001)
Civil engineering is dead, futuristic engineering is the way to go, proclaims the expert. Let's dynamite the Brooklyn Bridge as this is not the modern way to cross the East River in New York City. This old fashioned method must be terminated, says the expert. No one will need to cross the river using a bridge when new concepts for crossing rivers are almost available. Crossing rivers does not require a bridge because there is no excitement in walking or driving from one side to the other. River crossing must go hi tech, declares the expert. Going from Brooklyn to Manhattan or vice versa is going to be an act of unparalleled thrill. People who live in the 21st century need to think unconventionally. Traditional ways of thinking and logical rationality must disappear if we are to progress. Change is difficult but we must embrace it if we are to survive in this push-button environment. I will detail to you a conceptual design of what I perceive to be a revolutionary way to cross rivers, announces the expert. It is the Plan For River Crossing. The plan entails the following simple steps, says the expert.
1. If some one wants to go, say, from Brooklyn to Manhattan, this person should go first to JFK airport (just 15 mile east). Ground transportation will be available for those who do not have cars. A new state-of-the-art parking facility will be available for those who use their cars to go to the airport.
2. A state-of-the-art facility at JFK airport will be provided with sophisticated chambers in which one will be dissolved to nano particles and packaged in a capsule.
3. A state-of-the-art facility at JFK will have the capability to launch this capsule in space where it will be directed using a complex satellite system to land at Newark airport in New Jersey (just 20 mile west of Manhattan).
4. A state-of-the-art facility at Newark airport will be used to reverse the procedure done earlier at JFK airport and assemble the nano particles into their original structure (the person who wanted to go from Brooklyn to Manhattan). This facility will be provided with a state-of-the-art testing lab to ensure that the DNA of the assembled person matches that of the one dissolved at JFK airport.
5. A shuttle bus providing ground transportation will be leaving every hour from Newark airport to Manhattan. It is estimated that this 20 mile trip will take about an hour, crossing a couple of bridges and Holland or Lincoln tunnel. Cars parked at JFK airport will be shipped to their owners in Manhattan using ground transportation.
6. A minor detail of the plan highlighted above is that civil engineers will be needed to construct the new launching and landing facilities, parking garages, DNA testing labs, and to maintain the roads, bridges, and tunnels between the two airports, Brooklyn, and Manhattan for ground transportation. Civil engineers will also be needed to ensure water quality in the Hudson river. If for any reason, the launching or landing system fails and the capsule falls in the river, we will have at least ensured that nano particles will not drown in contaminated water.
"Excuse me," interjects one of the audience, "if the Brooklyn Bridge is dynamited, will you be willing to demonstrate your new system to us?" "I am sorry," responds the expert, "I prefer to use the Manhattan Bridge."
Sincerely,
Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 10, 2001)
Slap in the Face on Arrival – Kick in the Pants on Departure
Fellow Students,
After a month or more of listening to the state of emergency concerning Civil Engineering at Union I will not bore you with further reasoning as to why the decision to eradicate CE is a poor and hastily made one. Based on the literature I have read to date that point has been well stated and supported and I am sure you are all familiar with the issues by now. However, I thought I would share a little about my four-year experience here at Union, which is hinted at by the title of this article, and ultimately ties into the CE crisis theme.
I am currently a senior on the verge of graduation, but this story begins with my arrival as a freshman. Having traveled nearly 3000 miles to get here I arrived in late August of 1997 with nothing more than a suitcase and a hockey bag. I remember the feeling of excitement I had as I set foot on campus for the first time. The reason for my decision to attend Union was twofold. I was recruited to play hockey here and was very interested in the opportunity of a first rate education that I had heard Union was known to provide.
Let's start with the hockey. I couldn't wait to get started. I had played the game since the age of four and had an immense passion for it as well as the opportunity to represent Union as a Skating Dutchmen. I had worked exhaustively to get a chance to play NCAA hockey at the division one level. In fact I would say as a youngster I had dedicated my life to the achievement of that particular goal. I had dreams of achieving big things on the ice and in the classroom. The thought of a berth in the frozen four crossed my mind and the subject of a national championship even came up in conversation during my recruiting trip with then Assistant Hockey Coach Kevin Sneddon. This type of thinking as well as a part of my passion for the game quickly diminished in my first meeting with college President Roger Hull. As a good gesture, President Hull invited my teammates and myself for dinner. During the meal the topic of scholarships and the allocation of further resources to the team came to light (a hot topic at the time). It was thought that these things were needed in order to help a relatively young program competing at the division one level become more competitive. I certainly expected to hear someone like the President at least acknowledge the necessity of the aforementioned and open the floor for discussion on how improvements could be made. However, the subject was quickly closed as President Hull stated that he cared very little about the competitiveness of the men's ice hockey program as long as we represented Union well. Obviously he and I did not share the same passion on this topic, hence the slap in the face. Perhaps President Hull did not realize the impact his statement made to somebody who cared so much about something. Regardless, the men's hockey program and its eventual fate has been an underlying issue during my entire four years here and we could open a whole can of worms on the subject, which is not the intent of my article. I will mention though that we have not been invited back to dinner since my freshmen year.
I dwelled on President Hull's comment for quite sometime, but eventually decided to move on with things and I truly believe I made the most of my four years with the team. I also shifted a bit more emphasis toward my academics, which is an area that had never been one of great concern to my family. I was certainly encouraged to think about a college education, but never forced. I achieved good grades in high school on my own merit and managed to do well enough on the SAT to put myself in a position to attend Union. You might guess that someone in my position would look to take the easiest possible path from start to finish at Union, but I thought I would challenge myself a little and attempt a degree in Civil Engineering. Many people questioned my decision and pointed out that engineering and athletics couldn't co-exist. I couldn't have made a better choice. My time has been well spent as I have made a number of good friends in the program and have enjoyed immensely the interaction with the faculty. I am not an honors student, but I maintain a respectable GPA. I had the good fortune of spending my previous two summers working on the construction of a hydroelectric dam, an internship, which was made immediately available to me through a phone call and a letter to CE alumni John Testa. Mr. Testa works in the east, but was easily able to provide me with a position on the west coast. After all he has used his Union Civil Engineering degree to become one of the top employees in a company that employs tens of thousands. I can vouch for the credibility of the Union CE degree as well as I was able to obtain a job for next year before winter term began as were many of my classmates, and we don't even have convergent technologies on our resumes. I suppose some of the passion I lost for hockey through my initial conversation with President Hull during my freshman year has been replaced by the passion I have gained for the Civil Engineering during my time here. I am very encouraged by my achievements, excited about my future and up until about a month and a half ago was extremely excited about becoming a Union College CE alumni. However, once again it looks like Roger and I share differing opinions, hence the kick in the pants.
By now you are probably becoming weary, or think I wrote this article to boast about my personal accomplishments, or maybe you just think I like to complain, but if that is the case you are missing the point. There is a very good chance you and I share some common ground here. Are you a member of a fraternity or sorority? If you are the passion you feel for Greek life was probably dashed when you showed up at President Hull's house to protest U2K and were greeted by him dancing a jig to your chants of protest, how professional. You probably became further frustrated when you found out that the Greek system, which represents a majority at the college was being phased out. The point here is that we are all members of the Union College community, but more importantly we are all paying customers to the tune of around $120,000 for a four-year education, which is something many of us seemingly forget. We are not here because of the President, any Dean, or any faculty member for that matter, but on the contrary they are all here because of you and your parents hard-earned money. Yet it is ironic as they are the ones who continually make decisions concerning the fate of our programs and social systems, while the only thing I ever remember having a say in was the menu at the dining halls. Now those people should be commended for recognizing the value in satisfying their customers. I am not trying to rally the troops in social protest, but I am asking that you take a moment during your day and stop and reflect on what is important to you here at Union. Is it as well established as the Greek system, or how about a Civil Engineering program that is over one hundred years old and nationally ranked? If it is not, or even if it is it might just be time for you to sit up and take notice because the theme of eradication seems a popular one these days. During your time here if something is important to you then you should demand that your voice be heard. After your time here you will become an alumnus and I urge you to think long and hard about your time spent at Union. Was Union the type of institution that showed a genuine concern for you as a student, or was it simply a money grab like an overcrowded restaurant rushing you from the table to make room for new patrons? The answer to this type of question should help you in assessing the type of alumni you want to be with respect to giving and recommending Union to others.
Yes I realize change is inevitable, but at very least the students at this school deserve a say in important issues at a college, which ultimately belongs to our predecessors and us. There are some extremely bright minds at this school and I think the administration might be surprised if they would provide us the luxury of opinions and suggestions through a more democratic system. Thank you for your time and consideration and I wish you all an enjoyable summer.
Respectfully Yours,
Bryan Yackel – Civil Engineering – Class of 2001
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 10, 2001)
My perspective on the "proposed" elimination of Civil Engineering is somewhat unique, at least to the point that I'd like to share it with you. My assessment of the situation has shown many excuses for elimination of Civil Engineering, but little rationale.
In a letter to alumni dated April 13, 2001, President Hull states that the elimination of Civil Engineering is tied to financial constraints and is not linked to converging technologies. The shifting of civil engineering faculty lines would help solve the deficiencies in computer science and electrical and mechanical engineering. Of course it would, just like taking faculty lines from anywhere would solve the problem. The issue is what new problems have you created and has more damage been done. My question is, Why is this suddenly an urgent immediate priority? How long has the administration allowed these shortages to occur? I would suspect that this has been going on for quite some time.
Secondly, I was told that Civil Engineering "is more highly structured and therefore less easily integrated into the rest of the engineering programs, because the remaining parts of the engineering division fit more logically together," (whose assertion we don't know). If you look at RPI's Civil Engineering web site, they talk about the bright future they envision for Civil Engineering, and the expanding job market. Everything from infrastructure renewal to "high tech" via sensors to monitor facilities and provide feedback for maintenance and better initial design. New building materials for harsh weather construction environments, and of course, more complex computer-aided design packages. Ironic how our Tri-city rivals find the discipline so vital and promising.
Thirdly, a reference to "the high number of adjuncts is not a basis for excellence." was made. As many of you know, Union College's Civil Engineering program is ranked in a three-way tie for 8th nationally for colleges without Ph.D. graduate programs. Not having a feel for the substance of this ranking, I went out to the web site for college rankings done by U.S. World and News Report to see what it meant. My research showed me that the ranking is based on 137 accredited, undergraduate engineering schools surveyed. As you can see, Union College is ranked in the top 5.8% nationally for Civil Engineering. This dispels the adjunct hypothesis, at least in my mind.
My contention is that the elimination of Civil Engineering is indeed linked to converging technologies. In the publication, Union College, Spring 2001, page 13 reveals Union's plan for research for both faculty and students. This requires a facility to be dedicated for this purpose. As many of you know, space is at a premium, and the cost of constructing a research facility would be enormous assuming room could even be found on campus. However, if an existing building close to Steinmetz Hall could be found and retrofitted for research, then converging technologies is off and running. Butterfield Hall could be used for this purpose, but only through the elimination of the Civil Engineering department. We could bring Civil Engineering along with converging technologies, it has a successful history, but then again, we would lose the research building. This appears to be the only logical rationale for the administration's lack of flexibility towards the Civil Engineering department's continued existence. The inside cover of the publication Union College features "Up Front with Roger Hull," with a theme of "Preserving and adding". The article's lead sentence states, "EDMUND BURKE WAS RIGHT, AS HE SAID, 'LET US ADD, IF WE PLEASE, BUT LET US PRESERVE WHAT THEY HAVE LEFT.'". The article closes with "... a place that continues to create a vital educational environment for our students, a place that, in Burke's words, both preserves and adds." I would contend that President Hull is misinterpreting the advice of Burke. Adding if we please appears to be optional, where the preservation of what they have left us appears to be a mandate. The proposed elimination of a discipline that was "added" 156 years ago, and "preserved" (at least until now), does not correlate to Edmund Burke's advice by my interpretation.
I would hope that with respect to the "proposed" elimination of Civil Engineering, the college community would implore the logic, rationale, and integrity Union College is known for and develop a plan to embrace converging technologies, but not at the expense of any department. And of course I would hope you would agree with me to heed Edmund Burke's advice, to "preserve what they have left" before we "add if we please".
Sincerely,
Richard Malaczynski, CE Class of '91
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 10, 2001)
Dear Dean Balmer,
I hope by now you are beginning to realize the probable ramifications of your recommending the phase-out of the Civil Engineering program. All of the issues have been presented in Concordiensis and in numerous other forums, so I won't repeat them here. However, I think you will agree that the reaction from the students, alumni, parents, faculty, and friends has been far stronger, and from a much broader constituency, than you anticipated. Excluding most of the stakeholders in the decision-making process has come back to roost. I hope you now know the importance of the Union Civil Engineering program to the College, the profession, and the community. To continue along your proposed path will threaten the implementation of converging technologies, will weaken the other engineering programs, and will significantly impact alumni giving. Any gains to be realized by the elimination of Civil Engineering will be entirely wiped out by the huge negative long-term consequences to the engineering programs and the College.
As I outlined to you during the Symposium House forum last week there are alternatives that will strengthen and preserve all of the engineering programs and computer science while still launching us into a leadership role for the 21st Century. We need to be working together, not against each other. We are more than willing to do that. Are you?
If the reason for eliminating Civil Engineering is truly resource driven and is not arising from some predisposition on your or the Administration's part, the solution is achievable. All it will take is some hard work. The Board of Trustees, the President, Vice President Sorum, you, the engineering and computer science alumni, and all of the Division 4 faculty need to work together to develop the necessary resources to support the differential costs of the programs, acquire the necessary faculty resources, renovate our facilities, and update our laboratory equipment.
The Board and Administration need to come part way in demonstrating their support by providing some of the resources needed for computer science from the new lines being created, and by raising the money for facility renovation through the Plan for Union. We can do the rest. Announcing that you have decided that Civil Engineering should stay will instantly dissolve a more than $400,000/year alumni giving deficit represented by the Alumni who have publicly stated through letters that they will no longer give a penny to Union College if Civil Engineering goes. The amount is growing daily, and is probably much higher, as the feedback I am getting indicates that many, many alumni are giving the student annual giving callers a piece of their mind and a closed wallet when they call requesting donations.
In addition to erasing the deficit, the decision to keep and promote Civil Engineering along with the other engineering programs will add significantly to the ability of the Division and the College to raise funds, and will in the end strengthen all of engineering at Union. One thing this crisis has done is to inform and educate the alumni about the critical needs of our engineering programs. I hope you now realize that we have an extremely loyal, successful, and energetic body of Alumni. They will not only open their wallets wider, but will also actively seek corporate sponsorship for our programs. They are our best selling points in demonstrating the quality of our programs and our graduates. Corporations that are not willing to invest in developing such a valuable resource would have to be extremely short sighted.
So Dean Balmer, let's start to work together toward the benefit of all the programs. If you are prepared to converge with us, we will work with you all the way, and all of our engineering programs will continue to provide quality graduates who will lead the profession for another 156 years.
Sincerely,
Tom Jewell, Chair of Civil Engineering
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 17, 2001)
Willful Insanity
Union College community, believe it or not, the above "my way or no way" dialogue has been exchanged many times over the past few months in numerous forums. No matter how good the point you are making is, the only implied answer you get is "bang your head against the wall". It appears that insanity has become the buzzword du jour, and that Mr. Powers has just raised it to new impressive heights. Do not just shake your head, become a spokesperson for sanity.
Sincerely,
Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 17, 2001)
A Great Union College Experience
In a recent survey found in my mailbox I was asked, along with the other members of the class of 2001, if given the opportunity to do it all over again, would I return to Union and repeat the experience. At first, given the current issues, I immediately said no, never. But then I got to thinking; there is something special about this small college only 15 minutes from my hometown. Something about it still has not yet been touched or tarnished by the powers that be; that something is the friendship of fellow students and the quality of my professors.
Last week, Marie Maurer wrote about CE beyond the classroom and I want to write about the point further. I too have spent a large majority of my time with Civils outside of the classroom. Living with Mike Capraro for a couple of summers and during a term abroad in Italy, going spelunking or even taking road trips to Virginia and Plattsburgh to spend 4th of July at fellow civil Rebecca Terry's house. We are a tight knit group, I cannot tell you everything about all of us, but I can guarantee that put any combination of us in a small room and we will have a good time. We continue our support for each other at events that far exceed the limits of this campus. Traveling to St. Lawrence, Hartwick, and countless other locales, and most recently going to the University of Albany, to watch a fellow classmate (Marie) shatter the school record in the women's 3000 by over 12 seconds. Congratulations Marie.
This is only bolstered by the enthusiasm and accessibility of our professors. I could probably write a page about what each professor has done for me, but that would diminish the purpose. Instead, I will touch upon two professors that I am sure the entire campus has heard of. First, Professor Wolfe, a man who offers countless cooking classes to the campus, barbeques to the civil engineers (this past Monday being the latest), and opening his house up to the senior class after graduation so that we may have a central place to celebrate even for those who live states away. Second is Professor Snow; who can forget a man who wears bright yellow measuring tape suspenders, teaches “the great gezunta rule” in his classroom and takes students traveling through the gorgeous weather of Brazil? In addition, the “standards” are more than adequately met by Professors Ghaly, Jewell, LaPlante and Mafi. Special note, Professor Ghaly is the author of the countless articles for the Concordy and winner of innumerable teaching awards.
These are the types of friends and professors that I came to college to meet and be instructed by, they are exactly what I expected from a Liberal Arts college. Somewhere along the way we managed to make both popular decisions and right ones. We have learned to stand-up and address our audience, especially when it is a coat and tie affair. We have grown bonds at Union that separate us from the prototypical engineer, you know, that one that has poor social skills and wears a pocket protector; we have become people capable of a liberal look on life. This is evidenced by the two members of our class who received meritous service awards and also won the Battle of the Bands last Thursday. Countless civil engineers are involved in and around campus, there is nary a civil who is not involved in at least one activity unrelated to engineering, this is not an anomaly of our graduating class but a continuance of the great civil engineering tradition here at Union College.
During the course of four years in Schenectady I have grown so attached to the experiences here that they overcome the glaring mistakes and frustrations caused by various administration. Would I come back here, yes, on one condition: every single student, professor, coach and athlete that I met would have to be here as well. The rest could change. Change might be hard, especially if it meant certain people lost their jobs, but change would be necessary for the welfare of this college which I, and countless others, have poured four years of hard work and hours of pleasure into.
Jonathan D. Nieman, CE '01
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 17, 2001)
We are being given many explanations for the proposed elimination of Civil Engineering. When further examined, none can hold water. One example is that there are too many adjunct professors. This is an insult to those individuals who have and are contributing much such as Dr Charles Proteus Steinmetz and Dr Frank Griggs.
As an Adjunct Professor, Dr Steinmetz is credited with starting electrical engineering and bringing a new level of excellence to Union College. Last week we celebrated Steinmetz by giving his name to the student research symposium. Union also hosted the Steinmetz Memorial Lecture which brought electrical engineers from around the nation to hear the world renowned Dr Charles Concordia speak about electric power and computing. I am writing this in Steinmetz Hall where pictures of Dr Steinmetz at work grace the entrance and the walls of my office.
Adjunct Professor Frank Griggs continues to contribute much with his energy and experience. This has resulted in highly favorable publicity for Union, including his recent work with faculty and students in restoring a Whipple Bridge along the Erie Canal.
I have also served as an Adjunct Professor. Twenty years ago I recognized that the core Thermodynamics courses were deficient because they taught some things that were not true, while failing to provide students with the ability to relate fuel consumption to thermodynamic cycles and to analyze various conservation options. I volunteered to correct this deficiency as an Adjunct Professor at RPI. Professors from Union College and MIT visited to discuss the techniques that I had developed. These techniques ultimately led to my election as Chair of the 800 member Energy Conversion and Conservation Division of the American Society for Engineering Education.
I believe most of us have experienced the dedication and additional knowledge that adjunct professors have and continue to contribute to Union College. The argument that Civil Engineering must go so other departments won't need adjunct professors should be recognized as an unfair negative stereotyping rather than judging dedicated individuals on the basis of their performance.
Professor Frank Wicks, Mechanical Engineering
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 17, 2001)
The GLEAN Team Report, Guns For Hire
In the days of the Wild West, decisions were not made through dialogue, but through blazing gun battles from "hired guns". So when the dust cleared, the winner of the shootout, or the one left standing, was the one who was right. In the real world of engineering, the consultant is often referred to as a "hired gun". This comes from their code to exude their client's position, or else they find themselves unemployed and out of work. I've had the opportunity to review the final copy of the "Report to Union College on the Future of Engineering at Union" by the GLEAN Team, and I'd like to share my findings.
The document is twenty-one pages long. There is a lot of discussion on strategy and psychology to minimize risks as related to the elimination of Civil Engineering. An example of the rhetoric can be found on page 10, 1st paragraph, "The objective in having the Board work with Union's leadership on these questions is to insure that when the inevitable negative reactions occur, the board will be comfortable that Union has taken the appropriate proactive steps. This should enable individual Board members to do their part to support the Converging Technologies for a Changing World strategy and related decisions as the need arises." I was able to find one area specific to Civil Engineering on page 7. "Four of the many options considered were:" (four options were then listed), "In the course of deliberations, it became clear that Alternative 3 was the only viable option among those considered. We concur with their selection of Alternative 3." (guns for hire!) What the "many options considered were" we don't know, we are only exposed to four Alternatives.
Exhibits 1 & 2 show benchmarked schools ranked in Liberal Arts and Engineering including Union College. Evaluation of Exhibit 1 shows that indeed all schools represented are nationally ranked Liberal Arts schools. Evaluation of Exhibit 2 shows that there are eight schools represented on the plot. Page 3, Exhibit 2, references "Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and Harvey Mudd College, both benchmarked competitors of Union College, improved their ratings by 18% ..." Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Harvey Mudd, and Milwaukee School of Engineering are "Specialty Schools" with an unranked status. To have a National Liberal Arts Ranking the school must offer at least 40% of their degrees in Liberal Arts. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology has an undergraduate student body of 1,545 students, and its most popular major is Engineering at 85%, and Harvey Mudd has 703 students with 40% in Engineering. The second class of colleges identified as benchmarked competitors are Regional Universities represented by Rochester Institute of Technology and Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo with student bodies of 10,746, and 15,503 respectively. It is clear that limited resources may not be an issue for these schools and their engineering ranking may be helped by this. United States Service Academies are also specialty schools that are unranked, and most focus on engineering. Of the eight schools shown on the plot, only Bucknell, Lafayette, and Union are nationally ranked Liberal Arts Colleges with Engineering. It is not clear what parameters were used for determining "benchmarked competitors" since we have a mixture of apples, oranges, grapes, and bananas. The GLEAN Team comparison of "benchmarked competitors" is equivalent to comparing Union's Men's Basketball Team against the U.S. Men's Olympic Basketball Team. The web site to evaluate this information is; www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/coranking.htm .
Page 9 makes references to Exhibit 9: Trends in Engineering Degrees Awarded by Union College: 1990-1999, found on page 16. "... the number of ME, Computer Science, and Computer Systems Engineering graduates is increasing, while the number of CE graduates is decreasing." Inspection of Exhibit 9 shows that Civil Engineering graduated more than every other major except for two of the nine years surveyed. It has also maintained the same relative ratio of graduates to total engineering graduates. There is no mention of the dramatic drop-off of Electrical Engineering or the Computer Science drop-off with negligible recovery. Finally, the three years Computer Systems has been tracked is not long enough to legitimately "trend", (certainly not like 156 years of Civil Engineering).
There were some observations made by the GLEAN Team that are not interpretation biased. On Page 5, 5th paragraph, a brief discussion regarding a survey of the Engineering faculty identified that, "... approximately 70% of faculty interviewed stated they did not trust the Union College Administration." On Page 9, the summary of Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8 by the GLEAN Team shows that Civil Engineering alumnus donated at a slightly higher rate than non-engineering alumnus from 1990-2000. The GLEAN Team states, "... it would be better to mitigate the risk of lost alumni donations by communicating to Civil Engineering Alumni how the CTCW strategy is in their best interests." Hence the beginning of the propaganda campaign where Dean Balmer writes Engineering Alumnus/Alumna on April 6, 2001, followed by a second letter from President Hull on April 13, 2001. There are two particular segments that are my favorites. At the top of page two of President Hull's letter he states, "As important as civil engineering is - and it is very, very important in my mind - ..." The second line I liked was, same letter, page 2, end of paragraph 2, "Engineering is - and will remain - a distinguishing feature of Union, but it must also be excellent and the high number of adjuncts is not a basis for excellence." Review of the percentage of full-time faculty for National Liberal Arts ranking shows that 21 of 35, (or 60%), of schools ranked ahead of Union, have lower full-time faculty percentages, in fact 8 of the top 10 are below Union.
In trying to summarize my assessment of the GLEAN Team Report, I found that they said it best. On Page 7, paragraph 3, they state, "A detailed review of the competencies and motivations of the various Engineering Departments was beyond the scope of this study. Therefore we can offer no data to either confirm or refute the assessment of Civil Engineering's fitness for the new initiative. However, we understand the logic of Bob Balmer's and Roger Hull's diagnoses, and believe that Union College should support their recommendation to eliminate the Civil Engineering department and reallocate the tenure lines to support Computer Science and the CTCW initiative." In summary, another classic case of Guns For Hire!
[The GLEAN Team Report at http://civil.union.edu/crisis/glean-team-report.htm]
Richard Malaczynski, CE '91
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 24, 2001)
Natural Disaster
Natural disasters are fact of life. They are unavoidable and unpreventable. Man needs to cope with them and learn how to minimize their impact. In recent years progress has been made to predict imminent occurrence of a natural disaster, thus protecting or evacuating people out of harm's way. Some natural disasters have an impact on a limited area and some others leave in their wake widespread destruction. Disasters such as floods can be regulated to a great extent by proper use of dams along waterways. Disasters such as hurricanes and tornadoes cannot be prevented, but loss of life can be minimized by having in place a highly efficient early warning system which gives people enough time to take refuge in properly designed shelters. Earthquakes are disasters which are really difficult to predict or control but civil engineers have made great inroads to make buildings "dance" to the tune and rhythm of "earthquake music". Lately, civil engineers have devised methods to construct structures with foundations resting on hard rubber pads. These structures can take earthquake hits, vibrations, rocking, twisting, and vertical and horizontal shaking without developing cracks. How? Buildings are designed and constructed to be flexible rather than stiff. The materials used are plastic-like and all connections can take rotation without breakage, hence earthquake forces will have nothing to destroy when they hit. The evidence of the success of these methods is evident. The last two earthquakes which hit the states of California and Washington were of magnitudes comparable with the two earthquakes which recently hit Turkey and India. Thousands of lives were lost in the latter two quakes while almost no loss of life was recorded in California and Washington. Civil Engineers are the master minds behind the new design and construction methods. They are also the ones responsible for devising plans for emergency management. In many cases Mother Nature's impact cannot be controlled, but with civil engineers at the helm it can be effectively challenged.
Unnatural Disaster
Man-made disasters are common place these days, as if those caused naturally are not enough. Evil people plant bombs, derail trains, and hijack planes. These are unnatural disasters because they are man-planned and initiated, and they should not really happen. So, why do they happen? People who do these things usually believe in ideas that are not shared by many others. Because they lack the ability to articulate or argue their case, and because they usually have no case, they commit uncivil acts to get attention. They believe that if they succeed, although they never do, they will become heroes, and if they fail, and they usually do, they will become martyrs, at least in their own eyes. Becoming heroes or martyrs sounds to them like a great idea. It is a win-win situation for the creators of these unnatural disasters. They also consider that the blood and lives of innocent victims are a justifiable price to elevate themselves to the level of heroes or martyrs. Society does not forgive these people and, in history books they neither end up in the heroes nor the martyrs chapters. They go down as an unnoticed footnote in the appendix of typographical errors.
Uncivil Civil Disaster
The Civil Engineering Department at Union College is currently being subjected to an unjustifiable unnatural disaster. Extremely determined efforts are being made to abolish the department. The department faces a decision of elimination that seems to be arbitrary at best. The disaster is so unnatural and the decision is so arbitrary to the point that it defies any sort of comprehensible logic. One cannot think of a convincing reason why a beacon of civil engineering education should be destroyed. It has been shining for the past 156 years and continues to shine brightly today despite the very negative publicity this proposal has created. Society, the community, and the never-wrong market forces all shout "keep the beacon shining". Heroes-in-waiting think they are writing a gleaming page in Union's history book, unrealizing that the mere thought of abolishing a nationally ranked program has injured Union's image. It has also greatly injured their own image and reputation, but so what, they are also martyrs-in-waiting. History has already taken notice and it will make the proper classification. It is too late to stop history from doing so, but it is not too late to stop the unnatural disaster. Union's true heroes will do it and history will applaud them forever.
Sincerely,
Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 24, 2001)
“The Trumpets Must Go!!!???”
(note the title punctuation for effect)
It's a done deal. What do you think I have not been able to tell you for the last six months? The trumpets must go. We don't look like the others. We can't be all things to all people. The trumpets must go.
It started 150 years ago when the President of the Orchestra who was also a notable musician, director and composer undertook the bold move to add trumpets to the orchestra of string, wood wind and percussion instruments. Baritones came later and finally trombones gave balance to the brass section. The orchestra gained national fame and became an important source of community pride.
Then came a new President and somehow the idea that the trumpets must go. He solicited $120,000 from a trustee to hire the Beam Team Consultants to learn if trumpets must go. The Beam Team was a bargain. They dropped their price from $180,000 for permission to publish the results.
A study group was formed. No trumpets were represented. A trombone player who was best known for his eloquent sermons about why trumpets should sound like trombones was selected for the inner circle. The Beam Team Chief introduced himself with a crooked lawyer wisecrack. He asked for yellow sticker comments to learn how people felt. He concluded he did not know if the trumpets should go, but advised on how to get rid of the trumpets without being sued.
The four world class tenured trumpets who had successfully jumped through many hoops would remain employed for life but without their trumpets. The two young, talented and dedicated trumpet players who were hired on a tenure track with expectations of a career with the orchestra could be terminated.
The Beam Team Chief did emphasize that the orchestra was fortunate because the brass section had a manager who was well liked and respected. Perhaps he could be cornered and forced to recommend the trumpets would have to go. The rest of the orchestra should be pleased to inherit what the trumpets had. It was simply divide and conquer. Only the minority trumpets would have anything to complain about.
The President's first surprise came when he called a general orchestra meeting. He explained why the orchestra would be better without the trumpets. The unexpected reaction was disbelief, shock and sadness. The fact that due process had been subverted was also noted.
The response from the long time generous patrons and concert goers was even more devastating. Some judged getting rid of the trumpets to be an irrational and wanton act of destruction. Many announced they would withhold any further donations. Others removed the orchestra from their will.
The President belatedly came to realize that the trumpets were excellent performers who made a vital contribution to the orchestra. He always wanted to do the right thing. He tried to recall who thought the orchestra would be better without trumpets.
What next? All concerned should keep their comments coming in. Clear and constructive thinking may ultimately prevail. Stay tuned.
Professor Frank Wicks, Mechanical Engineering and Amateur Trumpet Player
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 24, 2001)
On 20 March 2001, the Washington County Highway Facility in Whitehall, New York suffered severe fire and smoke damage when an electrical short started a fire in a dump truck. Fortunately, the local fire response was under 10 minutes, and the remaining two trucks and bucket loader were salvageable. The challenge I'm faced with is convincing those self reliant members of the board that hail from agricultural backgrounds that the County should accept the full replacement value of the insurance policy and replace this 40 year old facility, instead of trying to have understaffed highway crews rebuild this burned out, twisted steel shell with bailing wire and duct tape.
Union College has a similar, albeit 156 year old, facility that is by no means cutting edge or state-of-the-art, but provides consistent reliable service with a proven history of success. In order to save money or better allocate resources (He can't seem to decide), President Hull opts to abandon his Highway Facility in Whitehall. “The resources associated with keeping the roads clear and safe in winter storm events (i.e. fuel, truck maintenance, salt, overtime) are cost prohibitive. Besides, not that many people live up there, and the snow has mostly melted by the time tourists are headed to lake George in the summer.”
This is the convoluted, veiled reasoning President Hull has presented with regards to “Converging Technologies” and the Civil Engineering question. While the debate may rage on campus, the administration is not the least bit interested in expanding the audience. Indeed, there is no mention of the Civil engineering question whatsoever in the Spring 2001 edition of the college magazine that espouses the Plan for Union, and includes a large expose on “Converging Technologies”. Could Mr. Hull be trying to get the board to vote on CE's fate before the Union College community is even aware of the situation or the debate? Don't let him.
I encourage you on campus to spread the word off campus; solicit alumni and donors to withhold their support at the very least until this issue has been thoroughly explored and discussed by the Union College community.
Sincerely,
Kyle M. Vandewater (CE 1996)
Public Works Manager
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 31, 2001)
Blind Obedience
God put Abraham to the test. He called to him, “Abraham!” “Ready!” Abraham replied. Then God said: “Take your son Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer him up as a sacrifice on a height that I will point out to you.” Abraham took the wood for the sacrifice and laid it on his son Isaac's shoulders, while he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two walked on together, Isaac spoke to his father Abraham. “Father!” he said. “Yes, son,” Abraham replied. Isaac continued, “Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the sheep for the sacrifice?” “Son,” Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the sheep for the sacrifice.” Then the two continued going forward. When they came to the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. Next he tied up his son Isaac, and put him on top of the wood on the altar. Then he reached out and took the knife to slaughter his son. But the Lord's messenger called to him from heaven, “Abraham, Abraham!” “Yes, Lord,” he answered. “Do not lay your hand on the boy,” said the messenger. “Do not do the least thing to him. I know now how devoted you are to God, since you did not withhold from me your own son.” As Abraham looked about, he spied a ram caught by its horns in the thicket. So he went and took the ram and offered it up as a sacrifice in place of his son.
Obedient Blindness
A comparative parallel to the historic biblical story is currently taking place. The Civil Engineering (CE) department is Union College's boy who is being tragically sacrificed by his father at the altar of "converging technologies". The knife here (we are told) is lack of resources, the wood is faulty data and biased recommendations by a "team of experts" none of whom are by their own admission qualified to make such a recommendation, and the fire is the extreme short sightedness that will probably burn Union's image and reputation. Many, many Union alumni and friends plead with the father not to slaughter the boy. They also offer many alternate sacrifices to save the boy's life. Nothing of this moves the father a bit. Union's abraham is determined to please his god by killing the innocent boy. Unlike the merciful God of Abraham, the god of Union's abraham shows no interest in saving the boy's life. This god tries to rationalize the irrational with the help of his devout servant. Union's boy is tied up and bleeding on the altar after being stabbed by his father who completely disregards the obligations of fatherhood and is determined to watch the last drop of blood draining out of his son's injured body. The wound inflected, fortunately, is not fatal, although recovery can take some time. Will Union's abraham and his god consider the pleas of alumni and friends to spare the boy's life or will they set the living bleeding boy afire?
A Heartfelt Prayer
May we all be filled with the spirit of wisdom to do the right thing. May we all be given courage to acknowledge our wrongdoing and stop fixing mistakes by making more of the same. May we all be given the fortitude to use our eyes to see, our ears to hear, and our brains to function the way they are meant to be. May we all be given the pure consciousness that enables us to put aside our personal agendas for the good of Union and her children. Union's favorite boy is still bleeding. Do the right thing and save the boy. IN THE TRUSTEES CE TRUSTS.
Sincerely,
Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 31, 2001)
The bard of country music Merle Haggard sings “I Take a Lot of Pride in Who I Am” which is a poignant story about an unschooled orphan who has grown up to be a not on welfare hobo. Senator Joeseph Lieberman as a Vice Presidential candidate regaled the nation on late night TV with his own renditions of Frank Sinatra's triumphant song “I Did it My Way.”
The core message is that we should strive to succeed on our own terms. Everyone has different opportunities and circumstances. Union College recognized the importance and pioneered Civil Engineering in liberal arts college. The hundreds of letters that have been received by alumni, families, students and admirers confirm the ongoing success of the program. Civil Engineering will become even more vital for the increasingly resource limited and infrastructure challenged future.
Union College did not thrive by copying. It has excelled by being different. The suggestion that Civil Engineering must now go because Union College is not enough like the colleges we want to compare ourselves with should be recognized as the flimsiest reason for self destruction.
Professor Frank Wicks, Mechanical Engineering
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 31, 2001)
Disgraceful Administrative Propaganda
It's been about three months since the “Plan for Union” has been announced which has proposed the elimination of the Civil Engineering department. In the past three months I have yet to hear an adequate reason behind this proposal. The Dean of Engineering, Robert Balmer, originally stated that the move was to allow for his “Convergent Technologies” plan, which would require two professors in addition to the four professors that Computer Science is currently in need of to be fully staffed. Since then, President Hull has said that the issue is not about the new Convergent Technologies plan but rather it is a “resource-based issue.” Which puts one question in my mind, how can the Administration say with a straight face that the elimination of Civil Engineering is a resource-based issue when the Plan for Union also outlines the addition of 20 new faculty lines, office space for the 20 new faculty, five new terms abroad within the next five years, increase in the number of summer research opportunities, the renovation of North Colonnade, expansion of the dance program, an upgrade of all residential facilities, the creation of social space for parties and concerts, replacement of Bailey Field's bleachers, renovation or expansion of Memorial Field House and Achilles Rink, and expansion playing fields and fitness facilities? It would appear that Union has plenty of money to do what it wishes if they honestly expect to be able to accomplish all of the above items, so I for one, am insulted at the President's undermining of my intelligence by expecting me to believe the elimination of Civil Engineering is a resource driven issue.
The way the administration has handled the present situation is absolutely disgraceful. To begin with, there is no mention of the elimination of Civil Engineering within the Plan for Union, which leads me to believe the entire Plan for Union is just some piece of administration propaganda meant to attract more students to Union, if it only wants to mention the positive aspects of the changes to come to Union, and ignore the negative. The same message has continued from the administration, within the pages of “Union College” magazine, the Plan for Union was highlighted, there was even a two page spread on Engineering at Union, and yet again no mention of the elimination of Civil Engineering. Of course, there is no mention of it on the website either, in fact the only mention of the elimination of Civil Engineering from the Administration has been two letters to parents and alumni in response to hundreds of letters received in support of the department, and to reassure incoming freshmen they will have the opportunity to graduate with a BSCE degree. Which brings forth another point, the Administration initially did not intend to inform the incoming Civil Engineers that the program is slated for elimination. I am unsure of what other action the administration could have done, that would have been more unethical than that.
In a meeting with the CE Advisory Council shortly after the announcement of the Plan for Union, Dean Balmer stated that the plan for Convergent Technology was entirely his idea, with no other help, he voluntarily decided not to consult his own advisory council of this idea. Why he did this, I have no idea, as one of the fundamental points of an engineering education at Union stresses teamwork. Whether or not the Dean thought his advisory council was lazy and pointless, is irrelevant, it is a part of his job to consult them, especially in a decision as large as the elimination of 25% of the engineering division. Later in the same CE Advisory Council meeting, Dean Balmer stated that he was continuing to look for funds for the new convergent technology program, but he refused to look for funds to keep Civil Engineering at Union. Why not? Where are the Dean's priorities when he refuses to search for funds to keep one of the strengths of his own division, and one of the strengths of the school?
I'm left wondering when the administration, will honestly admit what the real reason is behind the elimination of Civil Engineering.
Sincerely,
Craig Berard, CE `01
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 31, 2001)
Let's Get Something Straight Here
The Administration appears to be using any excuse at this point to show that Civil Engineering is not a valuable asset to the College, is expendable, and should be cannibalized to repair other departments' deficiencies. Most of the assertions are just not true. Whether they represent purposeful misinformation or just a lack of understanding of the department and the discipline, they should be laid to rest. The targets (reasons) keep moving and new ones keep popping up. In the end, after all have been shot down, the only excuse left will be the one reported so well by Professors Ghaly and Wicks in earlier Concordiensis articles, “Civil Engineering must go!” Then we will know the true reason behind the proposed elimination of Civil Engineering.
The assertions presented in this article are given in no particular order, other than my train of thought. However, taken as a whole they represent a significant body of disinformation that should not be considered in deciding whether Civil Engineering will continue to contribute to the well being and reputation of the College for another 156 years.
At the faculty meeting on May 22, President Hull asserted that there are 46 engineering programs in the country without Civil Engineering. Prof. Ghaly did some research and came up with the following facts from the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET):
Conclusions that can be drawn from these data:
At the same faculty meeting, President Hull also insinuated that the Civil Engineering faculty does not have the best interests of the College in mind in mounting the strong campaign to keep Civil Engineering; that he in fact has the best interests of the College in mind in proposing to eliminate it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Civil Engineering faculty members are not fighting out of their own selfish interests. We are fighting for the Alumni past/present/and future, for the reputation of the College, and for the civil engineering profession. It is right against might. If we are not fighting for the best interests of the College, why would all but two of the more than 200 letters we have received from a diverse constituency support the retention of civil engineering. Why would so many faculty, staff, alumni, parents, employers, and friends tell us they are squarely behind us, that Union's uniqueness is based on engineering and liberal arts, and that civil engineering is the strong constituent in the mix. By the way, President Hull has yet to show me his letters demonstrating the sentiment running 50/50, as claimed by him in a Division IV meeting.
In the May 25th issue of the Chronicle, the President is quoted as giving the following reasons for the elimination of civil engineering:
“Because civil engineering is more highly structured and therefore less easily integrated into the rest of the engineering programs,” while the truth is
“because the remaining parts of the engineering division fit more logically together,” while the truth is
“because we are primarily a liberal arts institution...” If this is a reason to get rid of a strong program that helps define the reputation of Union in the community, and helps make it unique, then I am missing something.
I could go on, but Concordiensis has limited space, and all of these issues of disinformation will hopefully be fully addressed by the Special Subcouncil of the AAC being appointed to look into the issues surrounding the proposal to eliminate Civil Engineering.
Tom Jewell, Civil Engineering Chair
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (September 14, 2001)
Rational and Informed Decisions are Vital for Civil Engineering and Union College
Nuclear War was narrowly avoided during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis because President John Kennedy did not follow the advice of the hot headed General Curtis LeMay. A vital lesson is the importance of a leader not being bullied into destructive action by immoderate advisors.
Last year President Roger Hull who appears to have previously taken minimal interest in engineering solicited $120,000 to hire a consulting firm with questionable credentials to recommend the future of engineering at Union College. Incredibly no member of Civil Engineering was selected to participate, while the Mechanical Engineering Professor who was well known for his pathological hostility toward Civil engineering was selected.
Predictably after the first phase of the sham study the hostile professor triumphantly proclaimed the elimination of Civil Engineering was a done deal. President Hull also made his regrettable and premature announcement that he would recommend this action to the trustees.
The reaction from concerned students, alumni, business people and citizens has been shock and disbelief. Civil Engineering was rated within the top ten nationally at undergraduate universities. It is also the oldest engineering program in the nation at a liberal arts college. It was later supplemented with Electrical, Mechanical and Computer Engineering and Science. Thus, Civil Engineering is also an important contributor to Union College's excellent reputation. Hundreds of letters have been received in support of civil engineering which also reflect well upon the experiences and insights of the individuals who have taken the time to submit their comments.
Professor Frank Wicks, Mechanical Engineering
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (September 14, 2001)
Back in the spring term of this year I published seven articles in the Concordiensis about the proposed elimination of the Civil Engineering (CE) Department. Using some historical parallels, I showed that the proposed decision to eliminate the CE department would go down in history books as one of the worst, if not the worst, ill-conceived proposals ever made at Union College.
This proposal lacks the support of the vast majority of diverse constituencies. The usual reaction of groups and individuals about this proposal is grave silence accompanied by head shaking. People are frozen by the sense of shock and disbelief as they try to comprehend the "logic" on which this proposal is based. People's sense of shock multiplies as they learn more about those who came up with the proposal and actively promoted it. The more people learn about the issue, the more they question the "wisdom" of the proposal, and the more they question the credibility of those who promote it. Any nose, even dysfunctional ones, can smell something fishy in this proposal. Why was it hastily prepared and rushed through without supporting evidence? Why were attempts made to slip it by the faculty without following due process? Why does it lack the support of the vast majority of people? Why do the opinions of hundreds of concerned people carry no weight with those who promote it? Why was it intentionally hidden from publication although the Plan For Union was featured in an entire edition of the college's magazine? Why was the administration preaching about preserving and adding while actively practicing dismantling and deleting? Why were many conflicting answers given as reasons for singling out the CE department? I could go on and on but I am sure the reader gets the point.
When asked, the few who promote this proposal do agree that CE is an important discipline, touches all the people in their daily lives, is relevant to the present and the future of this nation, has its place in tomorrow's technological revolution, and has something to do with all great things in the world; but, too bad, it just has to go. What kind of "logic" is that? Who can make sense out of this sort of talk? How can any one rationalize this way of thinking? Not me, I am an engineer, a civil engineer to be precise, who can make logical decisions. I use logic that helps keep structures standing, not that brand of logic that results in catastrophic failures. There are those who make illogical decisions and keep repeating what they said hundreds of times until they believe themselves. They find extreme pleasure when they brainwash people by the same broken record. It is their way of "getting high", which by the way, in their terminology they call "moving to the next level". People do different things to "get high". I for one, get really high as I watch building under construction "getting higher". Do not blame me, I am only a civil engineer.
I went to three professional conferences since this crisis began, and met dozens of people from all over the country. I can say without exaggeration that no one, not a single person I met, thought that the elimination of civil engineering was a good idea. It was an extreme embarrassment for me because I could not answer some very simple "logical" questions. I never initiated a conversation about the subject, but since I was always sporting my name tag with the words "Civil Engineering - Union College", people seemed as if they found someone who could answer a question that bothered them for some time. In more than half of the conversations, the question I was asked took the exact form of "what the hell is going on at Union College?" With a pure smile on my face I explained to them the "logic" I was given when I asked similar questions here at Union. Nothing short of disgust and dismay showed in their face expressions, followed by a generous array of greasy adjectives in the honor of this whole scheme.
A program such as civil engineering, which has been around for over a century and a half, cannot be eliminated by a pen strike. This program is not the property of those who proposed its elimination. They cannot dispose of it and flush it down the toilet the way they planned it back in the spring of 2001 when they announced their proposal. They do not own civil engineering because they do not own Union College. Like Union, Civil Engineering is a precious jewel owned by history and society. Union's Board of Trustees, the guardian of Union's historical properties, and its defender against harm to its future, will take a stand, I am confident, to prevent the demolition of one of the most contributing departments to Union's positive image. Civil Engineering must not be the sacrificial lamb to solve the so-called "resources" problem. This is neither a logical solution nor a permanent one. CE has nothing to do with what has been called Union's inability to compete, but CE is prepared to shoulder its fair share of cuts if necessary, for the betterment of Union. If those who proposed CE elimination get their way, do not be surprised if another academic department falls victim to some perceived crisis in the future.
The subcouncil formed to study the issue of CE elimination will make its report public on September 14, 2001. Read it, examine it, and make a genuine effort to form a logical opinion. We all need to listen to our consciences and stand for what is right. Only then will the stains on Union's white gown be washed away, and Civil Engineering will continue to be the diamond pin pendant beautifying that gown for the next 157 years. In the Trustees CE trusts.
Sincerely,
Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (September 20, 2001)
God Bless America, and Union's Trustees
As a Civil Engineer, I noted in my last week's article that I get really high as I watch a building under construction getting higher. By the same token, there is nothing that gets me low like watching a building getting lower. I happened to watch the failure of the south tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) live on TV. My eyes were glued to the word "live" on the TV screen. I kept telling myself this cannot be true. I thought the network forgot to remove the word "live" while broadcasting a Hollywood horror movie. I was filled with pride as I was watching the north tower standing tall for over a hundred minutes, and the south one for over an hour after the direct impact. Had these hits been just hits without the subsequent fire, these towers would have not fallen. Unfortunately, twenty four thousand gallons of jet fuel was more than enough to melt the steel columns so they yielded and twisted under the weight of the building above the fire. Aside from the unspeakable and unjustifiable loss of life, I was filled with anger that years of construction effort evaporated in minutes. I could think of no cause this could serve or goal it could achieve. I was, however, proud to watch and hear America's commitment to rebuild. The towers of the WTC may have collapsed, but their foundations are still intact. These foundations rest on bedrock, and on this rock new towers will stand as testimony of the will of construction-loving people.
As I was watching the destruction of the WTC, I remembered the destruction that has been, and is still being inflicted on my Civil Engineering Department. My goodness, did I need the WTC incident to happen to draw one more historical parallel? Definitely not, however, it did happen, and the parallel is clear. Those who targeted the WTC wanted to destroy something monumental because it makes no sense to go after a small target. That's how destruction-oriented minds operate. The fact of the matter is, it makes no sense to destroy anything at all, and it makes no sense to even have an attitude where destruction for the sake of destruction is the ultimate goal. Back in 1845, Union's President Nott was described as visionary when he added Civil Engineering to Union's curriculum. Today, Civil Engineering is as relevant as it was 157 years ago. It is in fact more relevant to people's daily lives than any other engineering discipline. Rather than eliminating weak programs, Union's administration targeted the best. Rather than even trying to find a solution to what the administration calls Union's inability to compete, they decided to dismantle one of the most contributing departments to Union's excellent reputation. The Subcouncil formed to study the civil engineering issue came up with five alternatives to the elimination of Civil Engineering. The way I see it, all five solutions are valid, each one has its advantages and disadvantages. However, all are far superior to the elimination of Civil Engineering. The Subcouncil developed these solutions within the academic budget only. It was banned from considering alternatives within other budgets such as Admissions, Financial Aid, Physical Plant, and Student Affairs. With these restrictions, it still came up with five alternatives. Do they include some cuts? Yes. Will sacrifices have to be made? You bet. Will we be able to do it? Yes, but only if we all work together on the common goal of maintaining sustainable excellent programs in all the present disciplines.
Civil Engineering has been standing tall at Union for 157 years. It was hit a few months ago with an indescribably destructive proposal. It has been wounded but it is still standing tall. The fire is burning. The fire has taken Civil Engineering out of this year's US News and World Report ranking after it was placed eighth last year. It also resulted in the dropping of Mechanical Engineering to fifteenth place after it was ranked seventh. I sincerely hope and pray that those who promote the elimination of Civil Engineering see that there is a different way to deal with the problem. Actually, there are five different ways as detailed by the Subcouncil in its report. America decided to rebuild the WTC and Union's Board of Trustees will, I am sure, put out the fire and prevent the Civil Engineering program from collapsing. They have the power to do it, and they have the will to do it, and they will do it. May God bless all construction-loving people.
Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (September 27, 2001)
Civil Engineering is Not An Island
In response to the terrorist attack on our country, President Roger Hull appropriately quoted from the poet John Donne (1572-1631) at the September 13 service in Memorial Chapel.
“No man is an island, entire of itself, every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main, ......., any man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”
We should also understand that Civil Engineering is not an island. It is a vital part of engineering and Union College. Since the premature announcement of the intent to abolish Civil Engineering it has dropped in the ratings by the US News and World Report. My own Mechanical Engineering Department as well as Union College has also suffered some rating decline.
This decline may well be a case of collateral damage, since I believe that both engineering and Union College have been getting stronger each year. However, the ratings are based largely on reputation and perception. When Union announces the intent to get rid of the nation's oldest engineering program in a liberal arts university, and especially when the program is rated in the top ten nationally, the evaluators may believe there are serious problems at the college.
Fortunately, Civil Engineering Department can still be preserved. In response to a tremendous outpouring of support, a committee was formed to study the impact and alternatives in the form of Resource Allocation Sub-Council that has been chaired by the highly respected Professor of Political Science, Byron Nichols. Various options have been identified and a non-binding faculty vote is planned.
Much attention has appropriately focused on the importance of Civil engineers to our society. We should also consider the individuals who would be damaged. Students are our reason to be here. During the last year I have had the opportunity to have many Civil engineering students in the lectures and labs in the freshman engineering course, in mechanics and now in thermodynamics. I continue to be impressed with the quality, enthusiasm and dedication of these students. I hope we will be able to attract such outstanding students with much promise for the future.
It is important to also recognize the importance of staff. The new Civil Engineering technical secretary is Karen Crosby who is the niece of the outstanding Mechanical Engineering secretary Pat Tuccillo. Pat excels in all ways including the personal interest and excellent relationship she develops with students. I have observed the same virtues with Karen.
I have been supported in engine modules by the talented Civil Engineering lab technician Shamir Pasha. I believe he could be blindfolded and still dismantle and correctly reassemble these engines in minimal time. I have also been impressed with the lab equipment that he has designed and built. He demonstrates that high quality labs do not always require expensive equipment.
Possibly the best local and national publicity that Union College has received during the last year has resulted from the work that the new Civil Engineering Chair Andrew Wolfe and his students performed in support of the Erie Canal exhibit and celebration. He is now proposing the development of a project management program. Professor Wolfe and his wife Lisa have also hosted the entire hockey team for Thanksgiving Dinner. They were also so concerned over our student's diets that they started a cooking course, and now are in the second round of teaching students how to be gourmet cooks.
I had the opportunity to team-teach in the multi discipline freshman engineering program with Civil Engineering Professor Christine LaPlante. She did a remarkable job of preparing the infrastructure portion of the lectures. This course was also the recipient of an American Society for Engineering Education outstanding paper award. The authors were Professors Richard Wilk, William Keat, James Hedrick, Cherrice Traver, Christine LaPlante and myself who represented all engineering disciplines. This course and best paper award provides additional evidence for the synergistic importance of having Civil engineering.
About sixty working Civil engineers from area companies and government agencies travel to Union College each year to take a refresher program for the Professional Engineer license exam. A consistent comment is the high quality and effectiveness of the instruction in structures by Professor Mohammad Mafi. I also recall that when I arrived at Union College in 1988 it was Professor Mafi who took the time to show me the features of various computer-aided design packages.
Civil engineers have probably saved more lives than any other profession with the development of safe water and sanitary systems. This is the specialty of Professor Philip Snow. He and Sociology Professor Martha Huggins have also developed an international experience in Brazil where students have the opportunity to experience the need to develop and preserve these systems.
Teaching is our first priority and Professor Ashraf Ghaly has been duly and successfully nominated by students for the College's excellence in teaching award. He responded by creating a geotechnical prize for an outstanding senior. Professor Ghaly also receives the highest praise from working engineers for his teaching in the Professional Engineers Refresher Course. He has teamed with History Professor Steve Sargent in developing and teaching a “Construction for Humanity” course with funding from the National Science Foundation. He is a gifted speaker and writer who contributes much to the diverse and intellectual culture at Union College.
Civil Engineering Professor Thomas Jewell has served many years as Chair. He should be credited with leading the department into the 21st century, and this is the expert opinion of Emeritus Professor Gilbert Harlow. Professor Jewell holds the Carl B. Jansen Chair which was endowed in honor of a highly successful Civil Engineering alumnus. Professor Jewell brought onboard great new faculty members for the department. He has pioneered the increased use of computers while authoring two civil engineering textbooks. During the last few months he has shown great leadership in our efforts to preserve Civil Engineering.
Mark Twain noted that the announcement of his death was premature. We should all make our best efforts to assure that Civil Engineering is not only saved but continues to be a vital part of Union College.
Professor Frank Wicks, Mechanical Engineering
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (September 27, 2001)
Alumnus Addresses Reallocation
Re: Resources Allocation SubCouncil
Professor Byron Nichols:
I do not envy you your current “charge” on resource allocation as related to the brouhaha in Division 4. My comments will be directed toward the resource issues outlined in your letter of July 27th. Thank you for this opportunity. In the third paragraph of your letter, the statement is made, “if the College had more revenues, the future of Civil Engineering would not be in question.” In a country where MONEY is King and “success” is measured by the accumulation of MONEY, academic excellence falls by the wayside. Why was the admittedly highly successful 156 year old Civil Engineering program selected for possible demise? It has been featured in college brochures for more than a century a Liberal Arts college with an engineering program — the first of its kind — and still successful! Every institution wants more revenue, but should not subjugate its principles to a short term lack of resources. As you requested, my input on the six issues:
1. Impact of loss of Civil Engineering on other Engineering programs at UNION. Civil Engineering is the primary basis for the development of environmental engineering leadership in the country. The discipline deals with the most pressing problems of today's infrastructure (roads, water supply, waste disposal, etc.) and environmental issues associated with air and water quality, noise, wetlands, and zoning. (Other engineering disciplines generally are supportive in the solution of these problems.) Also, economics, communication skills, and political considerations are major factors. Further, loss of CE would nullify the positive steps already undertaken toward closer integration with Liberal Arts. This includes four interdisciplinary courses, six mini-term international programs, and senior design experience with real projects of an interdisciplinary nature more than other Division 4 engineering activities. I would predict that elimination of CE would soon lead to the end of all engineering at UNION — perhaps that is the Administration's objective. (Some excellent Trustees have discontinued services to UNION in despair!)
2. Solution to resource shortages in engineering. Division 4 encompasses three major engineering disciplines: CE, EE, and ME, plus Computer Science, which has some Computer Science engineers but is primarily a Liberal Arts activity (similar to Geology). As most of the “engineering shortage” is in the CS department, some of the planned Liberal Arts expansion should be assigned to it, thereby reducing engineering shortages. Remaining “engineering shortages” might be addressed by: reallocation of funds from other areas, including athletics (although I played varsity football and baseball at college). Academic quality should have first priority over Division 1 hockey at a small college. alumni support should be encouraged, but it is a two-edged sword, as many alumni are withholding bequests and drastically reducing annual contributions due to the engineering flap and the Greek Tragedy which is occurring at UNION in The Plan. Differential tuition would appear to be fair, but it raises questions about Liberal Arts subjects which also have high equipment and supply costs, i.e. chemistry and physics. Elimination of postgraduate programs and concentration on the Bachelor level.
3.Definition of a sustainable, excellent engineering program. The CE program has existed at UNION for 156 years. Currently it is ranked 8th in the nation in the category “CE Programs with the highest degree Bachelors or Masters” by U.S. News and World Report. CE has graduated many distinguished engineers and its alumni are highly regarded by employers in government, business, and consulting firms. Graduates are accepted for postgraduate work at the most prestigious universities. Many CE alumni have branched out into other fields, such as business, industry, and law with great success. During the past 10 years, 70% of CE alumni participated in giving to UNION, more than the average for Engineering (Div. 4). And the average CE donation was significantly higher ($4405) than that of the average College giver ($3376). EE and ME were added as College programs in the 20th century. I do not feel qualified to assess them.
4. Importance for UNION to have sustainable, excellent programs in all Engineering majors as well as in all of the Liberal Arts. EE was added to the existing program when, in 1901, Professor Charles Steinmetz, who was associated with the General Electric Company then headquartered in Schenectady, joined the UNION faculty. ME was added in the 1950's. The other major program, Chemical Engineering, was never a college activity — after all, UNION is primarily a Liberal Arts college, and the first one to add an engineering component, which has made it unique. The important point is that any academic program undertaken at UNION should be of high quality, with college support for necessary resources, even if nonacademic resources are tapped to meet the need.
5. Circumstance under which you could support elimination of CE to provide resources for the remainder of Division 4. None (over my dead body). 6. Remedial measures to shore up faculty shortages in Computer Science. This was discussed in my response to Item 2. I understand that two Computer Science tenure lines have been lost to other Liberal Arts programs in the past 10 years. Why not transfer these back from the proposed twenty lines planned for Liberal Arts and perhaps move CS back to Liberal Arts? In closing, two observations may be pertinent to the Subcouncil's work. In private business and in academic institutions, you build on your strengths and do not cannibalize them too support unknown futures. Also, serious consideration should be given not only to additional revenues to meet existing resource shortages, but also to the substantial loss of existing and future revenues from distraught alumni including engineers, the highest support group. This compounds your dilemma!
Sincerely yours,
Albert H. Stevenson `36 RAdm (USPHS) Retired
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (September 27, 2001)
Candle In The Wind
The Subcouncil that was formed to study the civil engineering question issued its report on September 14, 2001. The members of the Subcouncil are to be commended on their high quality effort and time in producing this report. It detailed five alternatives to the administration's "done deal proposal" to eliminate the Civil Engineering Department. The five alternatives can be massaged in many ways to create many other alternatives that are as equally viable and acceptable to the faculty and to the Union community. Following the Divisional discussions of the issue, one can sense sincere desire on the part of the faculty to preserve the department. In every forum I attended, and I attended all of them, I can feel that no one believes that the elimination of the Civil Engineering Department will solve the perceived problem, especially in light of the fact that Civil Engineering has nothing to do with this problem, and that the criteria used to single out Civil Engineering were arbitrary at best. In all these discussions, and even in the issued press release, the administration's position has been anything but flexible. As I followed the discussions and observed the very rigid stance of the administration, I could not but think of the fate of rigid structures. Excuse me, but I am a civil engineer whose brain is fully saturated with "this engineering stuff". One of the "stuff" my head is filled with is the design of structures. The reader might be interested to know that structures are never designed as rigid entities. They are flexible to some extent, and can take some degree of deformation. Why? Because if all of the structural components are totally stiff, they will be more vulnerable to the development of cracks and ultimately breakage or failure. Imagine driving a car that does not have shocks, or doing bungee jumping with a steel cable. Too painful to imagine, isn't it. Think about it, even in our human bodies, only stiff members are subject to breakage and never the flexible ones. With no flexibility, failure is almost certain. It is only a matter of time before it occurs, but it will definitely occur.
According to the Subcouncil's report, the dollar value attached to the entire problem constitutes less than three-tenth of one percent of Union's budget. This is a small fraction of a penny for every dollar. It very much disheartens me to learn that my department is valued at such a cheap price. If my department is on the top of the list of "most wanted", I think it should be worth more than that. Criminals on the FBI's most wanted list are worth more than that. I hate to think that my department is less valuable than criminals! I always thought that the department that graduates the likes of those who manage more than half of this nation's gross domestic product would be valued at a higher price. It also upsets me that criminals are usually wanted dead or alive, but in our case Civil Engineering is wanted only dead. I am not aware of any crime Civil Engineering has committed to deserve all of this? The wind is determined to extinguish the candle, but the candle continues to shine brightly.
Now that both sides on this issue have spoken, I guess the question before us all is really a simple one; is Civil Engineering worth preserving? The overwhelming majority of concerned people answered this question with a resounding "yes". Union's administration did not say yes, and everything it has said and done so far implies that its answer is not "yes", although in his April 13, 2001 letter to the alumni, the president stated that Civil Engineering is very, very important. Why not preserve the very, very important program? I am sorry to talk about this again, but I have been, and still am wrestling with this kind of logic. I guess I am a little disturbed by the absence of the spirit of compromise and flexibility. Rigidity should not be a characteristic of a welcoming place like Union. Do not insist on disqualifying and discrediting all alternatives as non-viable or unacceptable. Do not portray as impossible anything short of destroying Civil Engineering. Do the right thing while it is not too late. Do the honorable thing while there is still a chance. Acknowledge that Civil Engineering is a contributing and vital member of Union's family. Acknowledge that the family will not be the same after dismembering it. Do not tear the family apart to accommodate a new baby. There is room in the family for all. Even with sacrifices, the family will be happier with all its members present. It will be much nicer if the entire family can sort this out before its elderly members take a stand. I know they will take a stand because they have the wisdom, the courage, and the power to do it. Civil Engineering shall overcome. In the Trustees Civil Engineering trusts.
Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (October 4, 2001)
Ripley's "Believe it or Not"?
We will soon know the outcome of the "proposed" elimination of the Civil Engineering Department at Union College. The Resource Allocation Sub-Council (RASC) has completed their charge and identified numerous options available to keep the program at Union. At a recent Civil Engineering Advisory Council meeting, members were introduced to these options. There were many combinations and permutations of the presented options that many felt might also be acceptable.
After much deliberation this Council came to the unanimous decision that the options presented to the Academic Affairs Council are compelling justification to reverse the "proposed" elimination of Civil Engineering Department. Since the President and Administration have based their "proposal" on the resource issue premise, and now that the RASC Report dispels this basis, there no longer is a valid argument presented by the Administration to continue to proceed with their "proposal". Rumor has it that President Hull has already dismissed the findings of the RASC. On October 3rd there is a faculty meeting and a subsequent vote by the faculty on the RASC findings. With respect to this vote there are current efforts to set the balloting parameters so no clear determination >from the vote can be discerned. The vote should simply be a determination of whether there is evidence, from a resource perspective, that the Civil Engineering Department can continue at Union College.
Already President Hull has diluted the will of the faculty by stating that he does not expect faculty to vote against faculty. The RASC has done too good of a job, they have identified numerous options available making the President and his Administration look bad for their hasty, ill-conceived plan. The elimination or modification of any academic program has to be thoroughly researched and evaluated, and the RASC report, the first honest, legitimate endeavor, has provided evidence that resources can be made available.
Now it is no surprise that President Hull is again caught attempting to circumvent the governance system since this is how he started this crusade. With a grant from a Trustee, a secret committee was formed to work with a consulting team from Stanford, since referred to as the GLEAN Team. The "process" to evaluate any major changes to an academic program was reversed from normal protocol. The Administration and the Board of Trustees were aware of the initiated "proposal" before anyone in the Academic Community was made aware. So the GLEAN Team prepares a report to help the College transition to the Converging Technologies for a Changing World (CTCW) concept for engineering, as proposed by Dean Balmer. CTCW was sold to the Board by making Union Engineering "Unique". Research and numerous course options were to be offered.
Currently there is a watered down version of CTCW with respect to two or three entry level courses to expose Union Engineering students to CTCW with no talk about research, quite a retreat from the original sales pitch. We were also told it would help integrate the Liberal Arts with Engineering but this might only occur with biology, chemistry, or physics majors who might have enough technical background to do design work as required by ABET Accreditation for engineering courses. To date, not two cents has been raised by Corporate Sponsorship to support this bold initiative, and there is no guarantee that any monies will ever come.
The continued, misguided resolve of the Administration has made educators across the country stand up and question what is going on at Union College. Last year Union College's Civil Engineering Department was ranked 8th nationally, while this year it has fallen out of the rankings due to its "proposed" elimination. Additionally there is collateral damage as Union College's Mechanical Engineering Department was ranked 7th nationally last year, and they have fallen to 13th. The resources needed to keep Civil Engineering amounts to 0.5%, (that's right, a half of one percent), of the annual academic budget.
No company or business would even entertain such negative publicity over such a paltry sum. Could there be pompous arrogance at play here? I have heard of a Liberal Arts Alumni, aware of the plight of the Civil Engineering Department, making a pledge to the College "restricted" for the continuance of Civil Engineering. This check was returned to the donor by the College. What a nice way to treat our alumni, and the Civil Engineering Department. If this is the College's leadership, then I would say the Civil Engineering Crisis is certainly minimized by comparison.
There are many Board members that do not look kindly on Engineering and would be happy to see it all go. There are also many Board members that President Hull has appointed over his last ten years which certainly gives him a tremendous advantage to accomplish what he wishes. However, I have to believe that in light of the RASC Report, and its quenching of the Administration's resource argument there is no further justification to continue this academic prejudice. This cannot be a vote for support of a short-term Administration's agenda.
Union College is a 206 year old institution, and Civil Engineering has been a part for 157 of those years. We already have been judged by the world of Academia with our rankings, and we have to live with the shame of how this initiative was covertly initiated. Regardless of the Board's vote, the subverted, reverse "process" has already blemished Union's rich history and tradition. The Board is now empowered to make the final determination on the fate of Civil Engineering. Will the Board of Trustees yield to the Administration, or will the Administration be forced to yield to the Board? We can only hope and pray that the Board of Trustees employs their wisdom and makes their determination on fact and knowledge. Yes, this saga continues to be to bizarre and surreal even for Mr. Ripley, this continues to be Union's "Believe It or Not"!
Richard Malaczynski, P.E. Civil Engineering, '91
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (October 4, 2001)
Terminating Civil Engineering Will Cost Money
“It gets late early in October” observed the Yankee catcher and much quoted philosopher Yogi Berra. He was concerned over less daylight as the New York Yankees prepared for another World Series. This reality of nature will continue as long as the earth rotates and its northern axis points further outward each day during our annual journey around the sun. When asked whether the Yankees would continue to dominate major league baseball, Yogi noted “it is hard to predict, especially the future.”
The point is that some elements of the future are reasonably certain, while most others are highly speculative. The Resource Allocation Sub-Council has shown that the termination of the Civil Engineering program will cost Union College money over the next few years. This is because the four tenured faculty members will continue to be employed while teaching courses outside their specialty and/or must be paid to terminate their tenure status.
Suppose Casey Stengel, the manager of the Championship Yankees of the 1950s, decided it was time to dismantle a winning team. By contract he would have to continue paying Yogi Berra, Mickey Mantle, Phil Rizzuto and the other All Stars players, but they could no longer play the positions they had mastered over their careers. Perhaps, Yogi could become a pitcher, center fielder Mickey might be moved to catcher and Phil reassigned from short stop to first base. Yankee fans would have become outraged at this senseless misuse and abuse of their very popular players, and withdrawn their support.
Fortunately this did not happen. The Yankees have continued to build even better teams. Two generations later they remain the dominant team in baseball. Our challenge at Union College is whether the 156 year old Civil Engineering Department that is a treasure and a credit to Union College can be preserved and made even better. Although Yogi Berra noted that the future is hard to predict, we can be confident that as long as our civilization exists Civil Engineers will remain as vital.
There has been overwhelming support for Civil Engineering from students, alumni, friends, companies and government agencies and members of the community. Over the next few days all members of the Union College faculty will have the opportunity to further consider the issues and to express their opinion via a non-binding vote. I remain confident that faculty members will carefully consider the issues and recognize that Civil Engineering is a vital part of all of Union College. They should also understand that the loss of future contributions from eliminating this first rate program will probably far exceed any uncertain future savings.
I have been informed that the Trustees are highly independent individuals who are committed to doing what is best for Union College. Hopefully this will result in preserving and further strengthening Civil Engineering.
Professor Frank Wicks, Mechanical Engineering
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (October 4, 2001)
Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In a few days Union's Trustees will vote to determine the fate of the Civil Engineering Department at Union College. Their verdict will, by any measure, be a historic event. It will determine the fate of a department that has been in existence for 157 years. Aside from the historical longevity of the program, the verdict comes at a time when every economic indicator points to an unprecedented need for civil engineers. It also comes at a time when the most important issues on people's minds are the environment, the nation's deteriorating infrastructure, and the need to recycle to preserve depleting resources.
Union's administration has crafted a case against the Civil Engineering Department (CE) and presented it to Union's Board of Trustees. The prosecution in this case, represented by some elements of the administration, urged the jury, represented by the Board, to find CE guilty and issue a death sentence. The judge, represented by the head of Union's administration, sided with the prosecution in violation of his supposedly neutral and unbiased role. The judge also solicited money from some members of the jury to hire a team of experts to go along and support the death penalty recommendation. The judge and the prosecution got what they wanted from the "experts". What the jury knows very well is that in order to sentence CE to death, the prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that CE is guilty of a horrendous crime.
What is the nature of this horrendous crime CE is supposedly guilty of? The answer to this question depends on whom you ask. However, early on in the trial, the reason given to execute CE was that it is the least compatible with a vision of converging technologies. In plain English, this covert notion implicitly implies that CE is an "old-fashioned" discipline that's least compatible with some people's vision for the future. Whether those who want to see CE executed like it or not, this "old-fashioned" discipline has served and continues to serve humanity well. Since the beginning of time, humans have needed shelter to live in, clean air the breathe, clean water to drink, and sanitary ways to dispose of waste. There is no indication that I am aware of that these basic human needs will be unnecessary any time soon. Civil engineers develop and implement processes that guarantee human needs are met, and that humanity enjoys quality life to the maximum possible extent. A traditional discipline such as civil engineering should be viewed as a solid foundation on which one can build a strong structure for new disciplines. Unfortunately, Union's administration considers CE a stumbling block in the way of the new. I wish to remind the administration that Union did not demolish the Nott Memorial to build a new steel and glass memorial. Union preserved the heritage. The American government did not demolish the Washington Monument, the Capitol, and the Statue of Liberty a few years ago because they showed symptoms of aging. Hundreds of millions of dollars were injected into these historic structures to restore them and to preserve the heritage.
The fastest growing city in the United States, Las Vegas, is using ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman themes to build projects that are generating billions of dollars for the local economy. The city also used some not-so-ancient themes such as the impressive half-sized replica of France's Eiffel Tower. Las Vegas is a city without history and it knows that very well. The smart city is borrowing from history to build its future. It sounds like a safe bet! Union has the history that Las Vegas lacks. It certainly does not seem right that Union should abandon its rich civil engineering heritage in favor of a new, untested, initiative. Union's administration maintains that CE must die in order for the new to live, and insists that the two cannot co-exist. What a gamble! What a misconception!
The jury has been listening to the prosecution's argument. A death sentence requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Has the prosecution built a case? NO! Has the jury been convinced? I sincerely hope not!
The latest reason the administration came up with for the elimination of CE is a lack of resources. The administration knew that this argument is very shaky and tried to build a complicated case in which CE was implicated and linked to all the problems computer science and the Liberal Arts have. The administration went as far as saying that the CE question would not have been brought up had Union had a bigger endowment. It is amazing that the size of the endowment is used to indict an academic department that had absolutely nothing to do with this situation. However, the Resource Allocation Sub-Council (RASC) studied the problem and came up with several solutions to the so-called resources problem. For the second time, the administration's case is dismantled. The jury listened to the prosecution's second argument. The notion that CE must die because there are no resources did not go too far. A death sentence requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Has the prosecution built a case? NO! Has the jury been convinced? I sincerely hope not!
In the May 22, 2001 general faculty meeting, the president stated that "with the exception of geology in the 1960s, no program has been cut from this institution". First, it does not make sense that, because no program has been cut from this institution, we need to cut something. Second, what the president and every one else knows very well is that the geology program was re-instituted a few years after it was cut. Cutting and re-instituting seems nothing but foolish. The implementation of Burke's invitation to preserve and add, as the president himself held in his Union College magazine's article, is certainly the smart thing to do.
The eyes of the academic world in America are fixed on Union waiting for the Trustees' verdict. Please do not send the wrong signal. Please do not sever your ties with history by cutting a root that is 157 years deep. Please make Mother Union proud and preserve her heritage. Please make a strong statement that no other department would ever be unjustifiably subjected to the bleed of time, effort, and energy the Civil Engineering Department has been subjected to during this dark time. Please put an end to this sad state of affairs and declare your commitment to furthering the mission of Union as a place to educate and enlighten, not a place for administrative adventures with the future of students. Please weigh the gravity of your decision and vote your conscience. After all, it is history that will judge us all. I am proud that I have been on the right side of history on this one. I hope you are too.
Sincerely, Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (October 11, 2001)
Converging Technologies Need Civil Engineering
Our goal is to provide the best education for Union College students. This includes the stimulation of thinking as well as teaching the various disciplines. Themes can be helpful in defining visions and new opportunities. Dean of Engineering Robert Balmer, who is a person with a high quality mind and a good sense of purpose, has defined Convergent Technologies for a Changing World as a theme for engineering at Union College.
Unfortunately the Converging Technologies theme has been used as a reason to propose the eliminating of Civil Engineering. This has caused many of us to reflect upon what Converging Technologies really means. My first thought is that virtually everything we have is the result of converging technologies. Our modern society is based on a synergistic convergence of the same Civil, Mechanical, Electrical and Computer disciplines that have provided the basis for our engineering departments. Our transportation systems combine Civil Engineering infrastructures, Mechanical vehicles, electrical auxiliaries and computer monitoring and control.
The Global Positioning System provides another example. For the first time in history we can instantly determine our precise location everywhere on earth with a system that combines the amazing precision of the atomic clock with space and computer technologies. It requires Civil Engineering to launch and maintain.
While our proposed theme is Converging Technologies, we might also define comparable opportunities such as Divergent Technologies and Spin Off Technologies. Diversity is vital to both nature and to technology. Similar to the manner in which various forms of life have evolved to fill virtually every niche on earth, we have all benefited from technologies that have diverged beyond their original purposes.
The applications of the Global Positioning System have diverged from the original intent of guiding military missiles to revolutionizing surveying, air traffic control, agriculture, hiking in the woods, and possibly weather forecasting by using reverse calculations to calculate and map atmospheric temperatures.
There are uncountable examples of Spin Off Technologies. The short wavelength radar technologies that were developed to provide better images led to microwave ovens that have revolutionized food preparation. Our personal computers and the process computers that enhance the performance of our vehicles have been Spin Offs from the space program. Without Civil Engineering there would be no radar nor space programs.
The point is that Converging, Diverging and Spin Off Technologies are all important realities and paradigms that require all engineering disciplines. These models will be badly misused if they become a reason for destroying a pioneering 157 year old Civil Engineering Department that should continue as a Pinnacle of Excellence at Union College.
Professor Frank Wicks, Mechanical Engineering
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (October 11, 2001)
Because It's The Right Thing To Do!
As a Union College alumni, (Civil Engineering to be specific), I attended the College's Homecoming and Family Weekend. I started Saturday morning by registering at the Reamus Campus Center where I found a couple of students distributing complimentary hard hats depicting support for Civil Engineering. I began helping them and immediately found myself as spokesperson. Whether alumni or parents heard of the news of the "proposed" elimination of Civil Engineering, they crowded around to hear the latest news. After a couple of hours, a tall, well spoken volunteer was approaching all the visitors and really working the crowd. I was impressed, so I took a minute to go speak to him. I asked him what year he was in and what his concentration was in Civil Engineering. He looked back at me and said, "Oh, I'm not a Civil Engineering Student!". So my next question is, Why would you be here doing this? He fired his response back without hesitation, "Because It's The Right Thing To Do!"
I spoke to so many people that day that I was exhausted from talking, but the interest that everyone expressed kept me going. I was surprised as to how much alumni, parent, and student support the Civil Engineering Department had. Liberal Arts graduates approached me and said that they were appalled at such a "proposal" and that Union College is known for the engineering. Sure, the College is 85% Liberal Arts, but we aren't famous because of that, was the recurring theme. Every time someone asked a question I would begin to answer them, and out of the corner of my eye I would see people huddle around to hear the answer, and then migrate to the petition to go on record as supporting the Civil Engineering Department. One graduate, (Class of 1943), was an attorney and he began lecturing me, "We certainly don't need any more attorneys, we need engineers." He went on providing me with guidance as to how I could make my case, much as an attorney might prepare a brief. The only problem is that the Civil Engineering Department has not been fighting its battle in a court of law where all prejudices and bias are forbidden. We are not within the framework of "The Rule of Law" that demands fairness and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. These legal foundations which our country is based on unfortunately do not apply to us for if they did, this travesty would never have reached the stage it has. I had a conversation with a mother of a CE student. She actually approached me as many people did that day. She told me that her younger son was all set to follow in his brother's footsteps at Union, but because of the turmoil going on in the CE Department, he decided to go to Lafayette College. I really didn't know how to respond to her so I told her that regardless of the outcome of the fate of Civil Engineering at Union, that her son would still receive a fantastic education and would go on to be a great engineer. I also reassured her that Lafayette College was a fine academic institution and that a great education would be obtained there also. She was more concerned over the amount of tuition she was paying for her son at Union, and that the CE Program fell out of the national rankings this year. I could see where her concerns were, and could only reassure her that we were doing all we could to keep the Civil Engineering Department at Union. Many alumni approached me with suggestions, Did you try this, or did you look at this? I merely replied that we have less than a week before the Board of Trustees meets and makes a final determination. They would also ask me "What are your chances?". If the Board supports the Administration's will, our chances are poor, but if they support the will of the faculty, students, alumni, and parents, our chances are pretty good. I liken the Civil Engineering Department as a spoke in Union's academic wheel. You remove the spoke and you develop a slight eccentricity. As time goes on other spokes become stressed and eventually fail causing collapse of the wheel. This October 12 and 13 history will be made at Union by the Board of Trustees. What will the outcome be? I say we will receive a fair and honest evaluation, and a plan will surface to keep Civil Engineering at Union, in the simple words of that one volunteer student, "Because It's The Right Thing To Do!".
Richard Malaczynski CE '91
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (October 11, 2001)
I Rest My Case
Last weekend was Union's 2001 Homecoming. There were discussions about the administration's “proposed” elimination of the Civil Engineering Department at the Union College Alumni Council's meeting, and in a second informal meeting on Saturday afternoon. During the football game, people exchanged ideas about the Civil Engineering issue. At the Terrace Council reception many people were talking about Civil Engineering. People walking around campus were overheard talking about Civil Engineering. In all these instances there was not a single person who spoke in favor of the elimination of Civil Engineering. All spoke of the “proposed” elimination as something that no person in his/her right mind would condone or support. At the meetings many people addressed the subject from many angles. No one could make sense of what was happening. No one felt that this was the only viable solution as the administration insists. It was a heart-warming experience for me. I said to myself, wow, if all these concerned people see it that way, then I rest my case before the Board of Trustees because the Board will definitely see it the same way too.
I was also stopped many times by people who wanted to know why I was wearing my hard hat. I told them it was a statement of support of my Civil Engineering Department that faces elimination. In anticipation of the inevitable "why question", I had to prepare some answer. But since I do not really have a logical answer, I told them the administration's latest “official answer” which is “reallocation of resources”. This did not save me from the next inevitable “what question”. I did not really have to answer this question because people asked it rhetorically and followed it with more dazzling rhetorical questions. “Who will build bridges?” “Who will build roads?” “Who will clean up the environment?” I listened silently, then answered by saying “civil engineers will continue to do these things, but they will probably be graduates of colleges other than Union.” People's facial expression showed deep sadness. I said to myself again, wow, if people who just learned about the issue show this deep expression of sadness, then I rest my case before the Board of Trustees because the Board will definitely be similarly saddened too.
What amazed me in all these discussions was the passion with which the non-engineers talked about the issue. Passion from engineers was obviously understandable as they watched a discipline of their profession being slaughtered mercilessly and unjustifiably. But passion from the non-engineers was nothing short of eye watering. Every person who spoke formulated a hard-to-defeat argument in favor of civil engineering. From my point of view, the most important question raised was the one that addressed with great concern the absence of intellectual discussion of the issue. Alumni were embarrassed that Union's administration was determined to “nickel and dime” something that is worth much more than nickels and dimes. And again, I said to myself, wow, if it is that clear to all these people, then I rest my case before the Board of Trustees because the Board will definitely not nickel and dime Union's precious resources.
It is now the Board of Trustees' turn to speak. On recent controversial issues, people were divided on either side of the issues. On the Civil Engineering issue, it is the whole world against a numbered few. If this is not enough evidence to the Board that a case against Civil Engineering could not be made, then I wonder what stronger evidence could ever be. And, if the opinions of all the people who spoke carry any weight with the Board, which I certainly hope they do, then the Board's only rightful verdict must be “Case Dismissed”.
Sincerely, Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (October 18, 2001)
So Many To Thank ..., So Few To Blame!
The decision by the Board of Trustees has solidified what was surmised all along. The Board and the Administration has worked together in concert on the fate of Civil Engineering at Union College. In fact the web site www.union.edu/About/CE states, "David B. Chapnick, chairman of the Board, said, "During the last two years, ..., we recognized the need to focus on a new direction in engineering while also making the most effective use of our resources."" In the minutes of the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of Union College, from the September 19, 2001 meeting, it is stated, "The Committee had a lengthy discussion and several thoughts emerged: ... we are increasingly convinced of Converging Technologies". In a letter by President Hull to engineering alumni, dated April 13, 2001, he states, "It is important to note that the possible phasing out of the civil engineering department is not linked to the implementation of converging technologies. Rather, it is tied to financial constraints." Now, back to the above referenced web site, President Hull is now quoted as saying "Certainly, the basic health of the College is very sound, and there are many positive indicators - financial and otherwise - of Union's strength and vigor." I could go on and on, but the "spin" quickly gets nauseating. You can draw your own conclusions on the motivations of the Administration and Board.
With the elimination of Civil Engineering, the students at Union were taught a valuable lesson in "Life", and with no additional increase in tuition! A bold new 200 million dollar Plan for Union and no monies could be found to help support a nationally renowned engineering discipline that just happened to have had the richest historical distinction of any engineering program at a Liberal Arts College. The skullduggery of covertly working with the GLEAN Team and their subsequent biased report, rather than initiating this in an open forum. The propaganda letters from Dean Balmer and President Hull, as recommended by the GLEAN Team, attempting to convince alumni that engineering "needs to be modified if we are to ensure Union's future." The subverting of the faculty governance system which thankfully led to the formation of the Resource Allocation Sub Committee and the numerous options they provided, although dismissed. The convoluted ballot and ranking of options for the general faculty vote when it probably was really the Academic Affairs Council's responsibility to determine the "least" detrimental option to the College.
When the Civil Engineering issue became public in March, 2001, all who were, and became involved, (like myself), knew that this was "The Alamo". Knowing that a Board member had provided a grant to evaluate this initiative was proof that there had been discussion to eliminating Civil Engineering prior to this. With the Administration and "certain" Board Members allied this quickly developed into Might vs. Right. And Right was later to be affirmed by the hard work of the RASC and their options. I was happy to have assisted in this endeavor and was motivated by the Civil Engineering Department's faculty and staff who exuded the highest integrity, dedication and level of professionalism throughout this ordeal. I would also like to thank the Union faculty from other departments who publicly supported Civil Engineering. I'd like to now thank the many who took up our cause; the CE Advisory Council; other Union Engineering Advisory Councils; the Alumni Council; the College newspaper, Concordiensis; the alumni (Civils, other Engineers, and Liberal Arts); the students (Engineering and Liberal Arts); the parents; educators from other institutions; the faculty who voted to keep CE; any Board members who may have supported CE; and Professional Associations and Companies. I'm sure I've left some people out, it's hard to remember everyone.
To those of you that pursued the elimination of Civil Engineering, you dealt a crushing blow to the College. Like a tennis match, the reason bounced from one side of the net to the other, over and over again. You illuminated a neon sign that acknowledges to the world the financial woes of the College, otherwise Civil Engineering would have continued with the CTCW initiative. High School guidance counselors, prospective students and their parents, and Academia across the country will sniff this out immediately. New students will be apprehensive about committing to a College where the precedent has been set that no curriculum is sacred, especially with so many other schools to choose from. The potential success of the CTCW initiative is moot compared to the long term backlash that this decision will generate. We have nothing left but to watch this unfold with whatever ramifications that will occur to the College. But this is how it all began, just sit back and watch it unfold, like The Alamo, it was a losing battle from the start.
Richard Malaczynski CE '91
Letter to the Editor (October 18, 2001)
|
Letter to the Editor (October 25, 2001)
It is Time to Restore Civil Engineering at Union College
“I don't have anything to say” was the best response I could offer to three stunned students on October 12 when they informed me the trustees had approved President Roger Hull's recommendation to eliminate Civil Engineering. I had been optimistic that the compelling arguments on behalf of Civil Engineering by students, parents, faculty, alumni, private companies, professional societies and government agencies would be successful.
Dean of Faculty Christine Sorum subsequently invited everyone to a meeting last Thursday in Memorial Chapel to discuss engineering. She and Dean of Engineering Robert Balmer were polite in explaining how Union College would be better without Civil Engineering, They could not be effective because there is not any good way to explain the destruction of the Civil Engineering Department that has been recognized as a shining tower of excellence while consuming less than one percent of Union's budget.
Joining Dean Sorum and Dean Balmer on the stage was the only Division IV faculty member who had not signed a petition to preserve Civil Engineering. Since he is widely known for his pathological hostility and tirades directed at Civil Engineering and his delight at its pending destruction, his presence was akin to pouring gasoline on a fire. A student had to apologize for this professor's rude and shamefully uncivil behavior toward Civil Professor Mohammad Mafi.
Off campus conversations over the weekend further confirmed the damage. Two well respected local citizens told me they regretted that Union College was dropping engineering. I corrected them by informing them that Mechanical, Electrical and Computer Engineering are not being dropped. They responded that Union College was best known for Civil Engineering.
It now appears that Roger Hull's disastrous plan to eliminate Civil Engineering goes back at least two years to his surprise firing of Dean of Faculty Linda Cool immediately after the 1999 commencement. Dean Cool may well have advised President Hull not to try to circumvent the faculty governance system, not to undertake a sham consulting study by not including Civil engineering professors and not to ignore the faculty vote that solidly supported the retention of Civil Engineering.
The Civil Engineering program will remain mostly intact for the next four years in terms of faculty and students. The first rule of fund raising is that people will not contribute if they don't like what is happening. The best hope for Union College to raise any reasonable portion of the announced goal of $200,000,000 would be the prompt restoration of Civil Engineering.
Professor Frank Wicks, Mechanical Engineering
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (November 1, 2001)
Can the Dead Heal?
This is in response to the “Open Letter to the Campus Community” published in the past issue of the Concordiensis. I must applaud the group for attempting to rally support to President Hull, as leadership at this trying time will be crucial to Union's survival. However, at the same time, I feel as though this letter was a fluff piece attempting to bolster the President's image by giving him praise for rather small accomplishments and by allowing him to dodge issues that he is ultimately responsible for.
The President has accomplished positive achievements, to be sure. As I have learned in nearly every political science class I have taken, a balanced budget is vital to the success of any institution. Roger has accomplished that. Also, the expansion of the college onto Seward and Huron has been a great success. The housing provided for students there is outstanding. However, the majority of the other “accomplishments” that the letter cites do not truly warrant his praise.
The letter notes the “significant overall beautification of the campus.” Yes, the campus looks outstanding. As a Frisbee player, we have noted that, even after tearing up Nott field, the grass is always replanted and plush. This could be, though, because we sink such a large portion of our budget into the campus' looks. Though the college will not accurately tell us how much money is spent on the aesthetics, we do know that only about 48% of the college's budget is spent on academics. That's right, 48%. Isn't it the academic reputation of a college, and not the looks, which will attract more students? U.S. News and World Report doesn't factor “attractive campus” into its criteria when ranking colleges. The letter also mentions the establishment of the Union Scholars Program. As a Scholar Student myself, I suppose that I have been a direct beneficiary of President Hull's “vision.” However, what is the Scholar's Program? Basically, it is a program that allows a student to take two (rather than one) preceptorial classes, forces a sophomore project upon them, and allows a student to take a fourth class in a term should their GPA be above 3.2. From those whom I have spoken to, few scholars have the time, desire, or GPA to consistently take advantage of that fourth class. I have had a good time with my preceptorial class and met one of the best professors on campus through it, but I must say that the program overall has not met my expectations. It seems to me that it is a program that Hull hastily slapped together just so that Union could boast that it had one. The success of Steinmetz Day, which the letter also notes, can be attributed to the Scholars Program also. This is because the college “greatly encourages” the scholars to present their sophomore project, vastly increasing the number of presentations. Hull killed two birds with one stone.
The restoration of the Nott Memorial was also a major accomplishment of President Hull. However, even this accomplishment is dubious. The Nott was not yet repaired when Hull expressed an interest in becoming president. He offered a “deal;” elect him president, and he would donate five million dollars to the restoration. Really, this money came from the mother of his then wife. President Hull effectively bought his position, and used his mother-in-law's money to restore the Nott. By any means necessary, right?
From 1999-2000, Union College's endowment grew by .9% when our competitors' averaged 34%. In each year of President Hull's leadership, our endowment has under performed those of our competitor's by an average of 10%. That adds up to (not accounting for interest) 100% over Hull's ten years of tenure. The letter goes out of its way to say that the poor performance of Union's endowment is not the fault of Roger, but of the “questionable investment strategies” of the “Trustees of Union, not the President.” This may be true, but does the President not appoint the trustees who are in charge of the endowment? This would be akin to me appointing a murderer as chief of police and then trying to remain blameless as the bodies piled up.
Finally, though I commend the letter's purpose, its plea for “a time of healing” is most inappropriate. Fraternities are practically dead, the social life on this campus is definitely dead, as is Civil Engineering. Can the dead heal? As far as I know, the dead can't heal. They are just dead. This is merely a case of the victors attempting to win the support (or at least passivity) of those whom they have just crushed.
I could go on (I am a civil engineer AND a fraternity member), but my point is merely to urge the campus not to accept the fluff stories being thrown around by so many right now, and look deeper in the “President” who ignores the voice of the students and the faculty. I put “President” in quotes because this obviously is not a democracy. Last I checked, in a democracy, leaders were mouthpieces of the people. If they failed in this task, they were quickly relieved of their duties. However, President Hull doesn't seem to be going anywhere any time soon.
Sincerely,
Gerris Greene
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (November 1, 2001)
Hull, Balmer, and Sorum,
You 3 have done a disservice to alumni, current and future students by pushing through a politically motivated, illogical decision to phase out an excellent asset of Union College. Specifically, you needlessly eliminated of a proven Civil Engineering program for, at best, 4 graduate level elective courses in an abstract "Converging Technologies" field that you can't even reasonably describe.
It is indeed a very sad day when a lawyer, classics professor, and puppet of the president can do such damage to a historically great institution. You overstepped your bounds in influencing the Board of Trustees.
The fundamentals of engineering remain the same...Balmer's prediction of the future will not change them. Converging Technologies will not change them. Implementing the products of these "converging technologies" into the infrastructure of America is a challenge that civil engineers will face in the future. It is sad that no Union CE graduates after 2004 will contribute to these exciting implementations.
Union can't be everything to everybody...but you just made it nothing to me and many others until the 3 of you are replaced by people who will listen to the stakeholders they represent. I have requested that your alumni director take me off all future mailing lists.
Casey L. Kurz, P.E.
Class of 1994
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (November 1, 2001)
The administration's recommendation to eliminate the Civil Engineering Department has been adopted by Union's Board of Trustees. The events of the few days preceding and after the decision are the reasons I am writing this article. These events were compounded by the open letter to the campus community that was published in the last week's issue of the Concordiensis. A few lines in this letter opened old wounds, and made me want to share some thoughts with the Union College community. I did not want to write after the decision was made, because an incredible feeling of loss overtook me. Not only the academic loss of the Civil Engineering Department, but also the indescribable loss resulting from the collapse of what I regarded as a fortified castle. This castle was symbolized in my mind by the word TRUST. On October 12, 2001, the meaning of the word trust and all its derivatives, including trustee, have sadly evaporated.
The letter published in the last week's Concordiensis refers to an email message from a student in which the administration is compared to Bin Laden. Although the letter indicates that this email was widely distributed, I personally have not seen this message. The first time the World Trade Center (WTC) was bombed was in 1993. This was only a few weeks before I was interviewed here at Union for my present job. A very high-ranking Union administrator who still serves at Union looked into my resume and noticed that I have degrees from Alexandria University, Egypt. This administrator looked at me and said, "I heard that one of the people who tried to blow up the WTC is an Egyptian." I was astonished that a person that I have never seen in my life before that time was starting a professional interview by saying something like that. I was dumbfounded! I was waiting for a question, and the question came in an astounding form. "Do you believe in what these people believe in?" the administrator asked. I must give this administrator credit for at least trying to ensure that Union was not going to hire a terrorist who believes in what "these people" believe in. I politely answered the administrator by saying "I am a civil engineer, I speak the language of construction not the language of destruction." The administrator did not say or even show any expression of apology or regret and with seriousness concluded by saying, "just wanted to make sure." If the question this administrator asked was not illegal, I am sure it easily qualifies as indecent. I hope the writers of last week's letter are equally appalled by this incident and are willing to condemn the statements made by this administrator.
Another incident happened when a professor I highly respected "semi-jokingly" said in an official meeting that Bin Laden was a civil engineer. The reader might be interested in knowing that Bin Laden is not a civil engineer. Even if he was a civil engineer, this does not make all civil engineers bad. Good people and bad people exist in every profession, every culture, every religion, and every country. Generalization will never apply to people's behavior. Such insensitive and disturbing semi-serious jokes serve no function other than inflaming a situation that is already on fire. And again, there was no expression of apology or regret for the false and tasteless statement made by this professor.
The most ridiculous quote I read was made by a senior faculty who has an important position of responsibility. This quote was about the outcome of the faculty vote. The quote indicated that, although the faculty vote was a majority in favor of Civil Engineering, it was not "enough of a majority." What a laughable interpretation! Even the word majority did not escape from being butchered to get its real meaning out of it then glue its corpse to a second word such as enough to reverse the meaning and make the new composite word mean just the opposite of what majority is meant to mean. I am not sure what "enough of a majority" means or what the percentage of "enough of a majority" should be, but let me tell you that even 99% was not going to be "enough of a majority." Why? Out of over 200 letters received about the CE issue, only two approved the elimination of the Civil Engineering Department. This is over 99% majority. What is the impact this "majority" had on the decision making process? Nothing, I am afraid. It is awfully sad that a huge majority at Union is considered to be not "enough of a majority" when the President of the United States is elected with a few votes majority in over a hundred million ballots cast.
Last week's open letter shifted the blame about the endowment performance to the trustees, about U2K to the faculty who initiated the process, and about the resources problem in general to the "unkind late 90's!" When I was a little boy, I was, and still am, fascinated by Bible stories. I immediately remembered the story of blame shifting masterfully played by Adam, Eve, and the snake in the Garden of Eden before they were all expelled. God gave Adam this order "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad." Both Adam and Eve ate from the banned tree. When God asked Adam about his violation, he blamed it on Eve, and when God asked Eve, she blamed it on the snake. Neither wanted to be held accountable or accept responsibility for their actions. They both were angels in their own eyes. Interestingly enough God did not ask the snake why it tricked Eve. The Bible says the snake was the most cunning of all the animals, and God certainly knew that and figured it would be a waste of time to try to get an explanation from the snake. As the rest of story goes in Chapter 3 of the book of Genesis, God in His ultimate wisdom and absolute justice severely punished all three. This punishment continues to our present day in the pain suffered in life by the offspring of Adam and Eve, and in the curse of the offspring of the snake, which resulted in its belly crawling rather than walking like all other creatures. One more point is worth noting here, if the faculty had this great impact on the U2K process, why then did not their voice exert the same impact with regard to the CE issue although a majority did not want to see CE eliminated. Oh, I am sorry, I forgot that although it was a majority, it was not "enough of a majority."
I will conclude with the most vulgar and in fact disgusting comment that came from the mouth of an administrator about the CE issue. This comment was not said in an official meeting but it was heard and over-heard by a number of people. This administrator clearly thought that the RASC report was nothing more than a smoke screen. With rejoice this administrator shamelessly said that those who thought that the RASC report could make a difference need to "kiss my RASC." In terms of attitude, I believe this statement says it all. I am civil and my civility prevents me from commenting on such low talk. This is simply the ultimate amazing disgrace.
Sincerely,
Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (January 17, 2002)
Do the Right Thing: Restore Civil Engineering
“Say it's not so Joe” are the immortal words from a young admirer to his baseball playing idol Shoeless Joe Jackson. It captured the sadness and disappointment of citizens throughout the country when it was reported that Chicago White Sox players had taken bribes in the 1920 World Series. Members of the Union College community have been hearing similar expressions of sadness and disbelief about plans to abolish the highly regarded Civil Engineering program, which has been recognized as a steeple of excellence at Union College since 1845.
We continue to hear sincere and well reasoned expressions of disapproval from students, faculty, staff members, perspective students, parents and alumni whose support is vital for Union College. We hear expressions of dismay at government and private funding agencies, at large and small companies, at local and national conferences and from advisory committees.
Throughout the community we are asked to explain how Union College could eliminate such a vital and well regarded program as Civil Engineering. We are questioned by bewildered friends and strangers at service clubs, shopping malls, grocery stores, restaurants, taverns, gas stations and houses of worship. We are asked by doctors, taxi drivers, insurance agents, lawyers, dentists, barbers, clerks and business people.
Admirers of Mark Twain were relieved when he was able to announce that the reports of his death were premature. He kept on producing his literary treasures. The good news is that the Civil Engineering Department and its outstanding students, faculty and staff will remain intact until the freshmen class graduates. All who are concerned about the reputation and quality of Union College should work toward persuading the President and Trustees to reverse the Civil Engineering death sentence and to nurture its continued excellence.
Professor Frank Wicks, Mechanical Engineering
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (March 7, 2002)
Trustees Vote to Increase Enrollment
Last fall, the Board of Trustees was presented with a report put together by the Resource Allocation Sub Committee (RASC). RASC's task was to ascertain any alternatives for finding the resources that cutting the Civil Engineering Department would produce. The report contained six options, one of which was the original administrative plan to eliminate civil engineering.
Two of the six options proposed plans to raise the student population; one option proposed increasing each class by 4 students, the other by 7. Several administrators argued vehemently against these options for reasons including but not limited to:
- making Union less selective in admissions
- more students getting closed out of classes
- more students who cannot go on term abroad
- putting more students into already crowded residential space
All of these reasons are perfectly acceptable as they certainly demonstrate respect for both students and faculty, and the issues associated with each reason are supposed to be alleviated by the Plan for Union.
However, at last Tuesday's faculty meeting, an administrative announcement was made that future classes of Union college would aim for an increase of 20 students per class. The Board of Trustees approved this proposal at the meeting that occurred last weekend. The administration in conjunction with the Board of Trustees has acknowledged that the addition of 20 students is a move necessary to balance the budget, as it will provide the school with the revenue they need to overcome the budget constraints Union is facing due to the present economic conditions. President Hull summarized the problem in saying “We have a $500,000 hole to fill for next year as a result of dropping short term interest rates.” He added, “this is not a choice that any administrator feels good about, but it is the best of a series of bad choices.”
Many students and faculty are criticizing the plan, asking why it is permissible to balance the budget at the expense of students and faculty, but not to save an academic department. Certainly, the aforementioned problems with adding students are worsened by the addition of 20 students per year as opposed to 7 or 4. Dean Rosenthal believes that it is "misguided and naive to equate this situation directly with that of RASC and the Civil Engineering issue.” He wished to comment further, but is very busy during pre-registration time and end-of-the-term issues.
Professor Byron Nichols, chair of the RASC committee, offered the following: "When the RASC committee met with President Hull about our alternative recommendations late last summer, he made it clear that he was opposed to any policy that added students to the size of the student body. He told us that adding students actually cost the College money rather than generating additional revenues. He and other administrators also noted the problems that adding students posed for reducing class size, strengthening Admissions selectivity, and providing opportunities for students to go on Terms Abroad or finding spots in popular courses. If all of these concerns were valid last summer, there is no reason to believe they aren't valid now. One has to conclude that there must not be a lot of careful planning or policy articulation being done by Hull and some of the Deans."
Clearly, the sentiments of the administration and faculty differ, and the administrative decision seems hypocritical at the very least. Faculty and students rely on the administration to keep Union competitive, but can Union's reputation handle another blow to the student/faculty ratio? President Hull says that there will be guaranteed housing for all freshman and sophomores, but how can the school provide for 20 more students if the lounges in West have already been turned into triples? Though President Hull articulated that the plan for raising this $500,000 has a budget that accounts for adding new faculty, many are still concerned with over-crowded classes. These are only some of the many questions and issues surrounding this plan that need to be addressed.
Avrum Jeoff, Student Forum
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (March 7, 2002)
An Apology
As Chair of the Civil Engineering Department, I would like to offer my apology to the faculty, students, and alumni of Union College, and members of RASC - Byron Nichols, Chris Duncan, David Hayes, Tom Jewell, and Kimmo Rosenthal. To the RASC, I am sorry that you wasted so much of your summertime to write a report which obviously was not needed by the administration to make its decision. To the faculty, students, and alumni, I am sorry that you were under the impression that your voices mattered. It is apparent that the administration had no intention of holding a meaningful discussion on the merits of the RASC report's options to continue Civil Engineering at Union College (a 1-1/2 hour faculty meeting to discuss the report cannot be qualified as meaningful).
Unfortunately, this is only one example of a continuing trend of the administration not listening to the faculty, students, or alumni of Union College. Last week President Hull gave another demonstration of this lack of concern at the faculty meeting where the 2002 – 2003 budget was announced. Here the administration of Union College unveiled its budget for the coming year to the faculty. I was taken aback when I learned that in order to balance the budget it would be necessary, according to the administration, to enroll an additional 20 students in the freshman class, bringing the class size to 560 (actually a 34 student increase), and add 30 transfer students. This seems to fly in the face of the arguments made against adding students to retain Civil Engineering. At that time the administration vigorously opposed the addition of 7 students for several reasons:
1) It would decrease the selectivity – This is used to determine how competitive the College is.
2) It would increase the teaching load on Liberal Arts faculty.
3) It would actually cost the College money.
So let me understand this.
According to the RASC report the budget was based on an average enrollment of 526 students. Yet the president said at the February 26, 2002 faculty meeting on the budget that the average was 540 students. If the average truly is 540 students, then the addition of 7 students to the RASC report average would yield 533 students – 7 less than the average reported by the administration. In other words, there would have been NO impact to selectivity, teaching load, or money. So now the question becomes: which number from the administration is true?
But when either number is used to figure the impact of admitting 560 students it:
If this was an isolated incident, it might be possible to believe the administration's claims. Unfortunately, these incidents are part of a trend to build a school without an academic foundation.
I came here with a great deal of pride in Union College. The administration has done its best to erode that pride and confidence to the point where I am proud of the students but not the College.
During the reign of President Hull, the buildings and grounds have significantly improved. During that same time the administration has ignored the academic needs of the college with the resultant drop in the US News & World Report rankings (they weigh academic reputation very heavily, and do not weigh housing, social life on campus, or buildings and grounds at all).
At what point do we, as a faculty, stand up to the administration and say that the academics of the College are of paramount importance.
Andrew Wolfe
Assistant Professor & Chair, Department of Civil Engineering
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (March 7, 2002)
Kiss My RASC
“Kiss my RASC”, triumphantly said one of the members of Union College's administration after the board of trustees voted to abolish the Civil Engineering (CE) Department in October 2001. This administrator said it in response to questions from some who thought that the report issued by the Resource Allocation Sub Council (RASC) could have made a difference in the apparently guaranteed elimination as a final outcome of the whole process. The RASC committee was formed to study the administration's “proposal” to abolish the CE department. The committee came up with five alternatives to the elimination of the CE department. Each and every alternative was mercilessly attacked, discredited, and disqualified by the administration. One of these alternatives was to increase Union's student population by 7 students, and another alternative was to increase the student population by only 4 students with an early retirement option for senior faculty. Along with the rest of the five alternatives, Union's administration wasted no time in pounding and bulldozing these two alternatives and described them as totally unacceptable. Union's administration vehemently rejected any solution. They even refused to consider the alternative that the faculty voted to add to the ballot. The administration was not too keen on looking for a solution, but, to its credit, it was extremely sincere in amplifying the problem. It was a problem manufactured by rich and fertile administrative minds. A problem whose sole solution as envisioned by the administration was to execute the CE department.
In the general faculty meeting of February 26, 2002 Union's administration outlined the new budget. The short fall in the budget is $500,000. The administration decided to deal with this problem in a creative and wondrous way. Increase the student population by 38 students! No, said the administration, the increase will only be 20 students. No matter how you look at it, whether it is the regular mathematical method which results in an increase of 38 students, or the fuzzy math method which results in an increase of 20 students, the student population at Union College will be significantly increased beyond the 4 or 7 students that were needed to save the CE department. Interestingly enough, the administration promotes the increase with arguments that are in direct conflict with those it used to reject any increase in the student population. Not only that, it is very clear now that the administrator who said “kiss my RASC” was absolutely accurate in equating the value of this report to basically nothing. The administration never even considered forming a committee to study the issue as required by rules in place. When pressured to follow due process, the recent unfolding events demonstrate that the administration went along just for the show. It proves once again, as if we need to prove it again, that the administration's “proposal” to eliminate the CE department was not a proposal after all. It was a preconceived conclusion of a plan that was shamelessly executed despite the opposition of the whole world except for a numbered few.
Wake up Union College faculty. Your vote in which you expressed your opinion with regards to the elimination of the CE department was totally disregarded by the administration. A majority of the faculty voted against the elimination of the CE department but the administration shrugged off the results of the vote and said, “it was not enough of a majority”. Is this a new brand of democracy? What a mockery! The administration used scare tactics to show the Liberal Arts faculty that they would carry the burden of any increase in the student population if they voted to save the CE department by increasing the number of students. Is this argument still valid now that the administration is proposing an enormous increase in the student population? The student-faculty ratio will deteriorate and this will negatively impact Union's national ranking, said the administration when an increase of only 4 to 7 students was suggested to save the CE department. Where have these eloquent arguments gone?
Wake up Union's Board of Trustees. You need to question the administration's conflicting stances. You need to thoroughly examine the administration's unprecedented undermining of the community's collective intelligence. You need to take a second look at the real issue behind the elimination of the CE department. You need to reach out to students, faculty, alumni, and parents and seek their opinions. These opinions must carry the weight they deserve. The opinions of a numbered few can never be wiser than the collective opinion of the entire community, especially when the numbered few lack the qualifications and the track record that could provide them with any degree of superiority. Why did nine voting members of the board not show up for the last trustees meeting and thus failed to vote on the question of the elimination of the CE department? Is the elimination of a 157 years old academic department that trivial? What an embarrassment! You need to remember that, despite the administration's best efforts, only 11 of 27 board members voted to eliminate the department. Is this “enough of a majority”? All these reasons, coupled with the administration's 180 degrees turn from previously crafted arguments, should raise a huge red flag to seriously examine why the CE department was demolished. Eleven of you, Union's trustees, voted to torpedo the CE department, and you, Union's trustees, have the power, and the duty, to reinstitute it. It is your historical responsibility to do so especially in light of the fact that the entire case built by the administration is presently being quietly dismantled by no other than this very same administration.
Sincerely,
Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (April 18, 2002)
Pointless Survey
For the second time this year the student body has been sent a survey from the Subcommittee for the Allocation of Tenure Lines. The survey was survey was sent through E-mail first during Winter Term and then again during the first week of this term. Although all students of Union College received a copy of this survey through their school accounts, most of us saw it as merely more junk email. However, those who read the survey found that question 6 asked, “What types of programs, classes or concentrations, currently absent from Union's Course Catalog, would you personally be interested in taking?” and question number 7 asked, “What additional classes, majors, programs, etc, offered at other institutions would benefit Union as a liberal arts and engineering college?” Although the Subcommittee may have felt these inquiries were harmless, the result was actually insulting to the students, faculty and supporters of Civil Engineering. I find it difficult to believe that an academic institution can remove a department one term, and then the next term ask for new ideas for academic majors. This essential equates to a slap in the face. The majority of students and faculty from Union either voted or signed a petition to keep Civil Engineering. However, our voices were not heard. There was no need for this survey to be sent to the student body. We, the students, already told the school what we felt was beneficial to Union College as a liberal arts and engineering school through the petitions we signed, the rallies we attended and the letters we wrote. Shouldn't the ideas of the students have been listened to initially? This survey merely says, “Yes, you get to pick which majors we have at your school, but only if you pick the right ones.” Being sent this survey once was painful, being sent it twice was unbearable. Time and time again the Civil Engineering students and staff have been forced to defend their majors and their love for that major. We have screamed that our profession is important, that we are needed, that we converge. Our screams weren't loud enough for the trustees, and I highly doubt that writing a couple words on an emailed survey will be enough for the Subcommittee on the Allocation of Tenure Lines.
Andrea Hudak '03
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (April 18, 2002)
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
The recent determination by the Board of Trustees to increase the student rolls and increase tuition to cover the $500,000 dollar shortfall has received mixed reviews. The purported shortfall has been blamed on falling short term interest rates. Investigation of the short term interest rates has provided some interesting insight. As an example, the Discount Rate at the end of December 2000 was at 6%, by October 2001 it had dropped to 2%, and it is currently steady at 1.25%. The Discount Rate is the rate the Federal Reserve lends money to depository institutions. If Union College is receiving an average 1.2% return on this investment from October 2001 until February 2002, it would have received 0.5% for this time period. For all practical purposes, this low of a return is essentially zero when compared to the deficit. At the time of the Board of Trustees vote on the fate of Civil Engineering on October 12, 2001, there must already have been a $500,000 dollar deficit. No mention of this was made at that time, not until the announcement this February of the $500,000 dollar deficit.
President Hull has stated at numerous meetings, that the College's endowment has not performed as well as expected. The endowment's performance is a function of how it is managed. It is the responsibility of the Board of Trustees and the Administration to run and operate the College to which the endowment is the foundation. There are scenarios where poor performance cannot be linked to a fund's management, such as current conditions where the stock market is flat in conjunction with interest rates. Review of the Dow Jones Industrial Average from the end of 1996 to the end of 2000 shows that the index jumped from around 6,500 to 11,750 for an 80% increase. It has been reported that Union's endowment increased 0.9% for 1999, (less than inflation), while its competitors were enjoying returns of 17% to 35%. Union's current endowment is estimated at about 240 million dollars. A mere 0.25%, (quarter of 1%), increase in any one of those prime years would have covered the existing shortfall resulting in the need for more students and higher tuition. So now it is clearer why the Board of Trustees never entertained the recommendations of the R.A.S.C. report. The R.A.S.C. proposals would later prove useful for their dealing with the deficit they were aware of, but did not publicize until this spring.
The Good
The beauty of the campus is spectacular. The historical Nott Memorial has been restored, Schaffer Library has been upgraded and enlarged, the Olin Building is a nice addition, and Seward Place has been rejuvenated. There are plans to upgrade classrooms and dorms. The Civil Engineering faculty continue to maintain their dedication to the students, and the students, their dedication to remaining at Union College for their education. Union College will continue to survive although its stature may sustain serious damage.
The Bad
The performance of the endowment has not met expectations, i.e. it has not been diligently managed. The resulting deficit will be addressed with R.A.S.C. proposals, all of which were so eloquently rejected by the Administration when their original intent was to salvage Civil Engineering. The grand construction, remodeling, and building plans have created an imbalance between aesthetics and academics. A new philosophy that academic programs can act as sources of revenue has been implemented. Prior mismanagement of the endowment missed golden opportunities capitalized on by our competitors. This has come home to roost at the expense of the students and faculty.
The Ugly
There is little solidarity amongst the faculty has been stifled for fear of incurring the wrath of the administration. This fear was cultivated once it was clear that the Board and the administration were "one". That the incoming Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Stephen J. Ciesinski, is rumored as putting the Electrical Engineering Department on notice that if they don't make haste in embracing Converging Technologies, they will be next to go. The comment by an administrator to "Kiss My R.A.S.C." with regards to the Resource Allocation Sub Council's recommendations. There are two disturbing observations regarding this comment. The first is the manner in which this administrator characterized the fate of Civil Engineering. What will prove to be a tremendous blow to the College was trivialized as if it were a personal victory. Secondly, the vulgarity, indignity and insensitivity of such a comment has no place at Union College.
The foreword to the book "Thirty Years in the life of a College" written by Union's distinguished and respected past Professor of Psychology, William C. Huntley, carries an important message. The message is by Arnold I. Burns, Chairman of the Board of Trustees at the time. He cites a passage written by Union College President, Dixon Ryan Fox, that paraphrased states, "we must take on an obligation of trust" , that the college does not belong to us, but rather us to the college, and we may use the college, but not use it up. The Administration and Board's "obligation of trust" has withered by the covert and secret dealings with the California GLEAN Team Consultants, the vote to eliminate Civil Engineering by eleven of eighteen Board members with nine more absent, the dismal management of the endowment, venture academics supported by private industry, and the disenfranchisement of students, faculty, and alumni. Union College's campus beauty is exquisite, however the old adage "Beauty is only skin deep!" applies because there is an interior political environment that has reared its ugly head. Union College will survive, but it will continue to suffer until the underlying foundation of "obligation of trust" is restored and administrators, students, faculty and alumni can all work together to correct injustices and make Union College both beautiful and whole again.
Sincerely,
Richard Malaczynski, P.E. CE '91
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 9, 2002)
Alumnus Creates Petition to Remove Hull
By Michael S. Mcguire '02, Editor Emeritus
In response to actions taken by the administration over the course of the past few years, a group of Union College alumni circulated a petition to other alumni to remove Roger Hull as president. According to Brien Gidlow, who graduated as a civil engineer in 1969, and who emailed the petitions, approximately 2,000 alumni email addresses were obtained from the Union College web site. He said that 100-200 of those came back as invalid addresses, and out of the rest, about 500 responses were received. Of these responses, the sentiment was that President Hull should be removed. He said he only received two responses criticizing the petition and its intent. The petition itself stated:
“I, [name of petitioner], class of [class year of petitioner], major: [field], address: [street, city, state], believe that Roger Hull should be removed as President by the board of Trustees for the following reasons:
Gidlow said that he was “disappointed by the numbers, but the responses were overwhelmingly in favor of removal.” He pointed out that the email addresses were not just those of civil engineers, however he felt that the majority were recent, younger alumni who were more likely to have email addresses.
Gidlow also pointed out that the petition was not only in response to the decision to eliminate the Civil Engineering Department. He said that he, personally, used to live in central New York, and was part of this region's alumni group. Gidlow said that “after talking to Roger” he became aware of the fact that he and the president weren't “on the same wavelength.” He said that he stopped giving to the school a few years ago, factoring into the decision the “treatment of fraternities” and the “status of the endowment, which has gone down significantly during Roger Hull's term compared to other schools” similar to Union. Gidlow added he had given money to a special “Harlow Fund” set up for a former civil engineering professor, which he had believed would go directly to the department, however he was unsure what actually became of it.
Gidlow said that the petition went through several drafts among interested alumni, and that he had wanted it to be sent out in November or December in time to be presented at the January Board of Trustees meeting, however that was not possible, and he hopes that it will be presented at the June meeting. Gidlow said that thirty-five to forty volunteers spent hours copying addresses from the Union web site, and worked to “ensure the petition was based on fact, not emotion.”
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 9, 2002)
Why Trustees Should Reconsider Civil Engineering
Despite last October's vote to phase out Civil Engineering, the department's students and faculty remain premier examples of what Union College should be in terms of academics, mentoring students, active citizenship and community service.
I observed it three weeks ago at the United States Military Academy at West Point which hosted a conference of the American Society for Engineering Education. Rubberized concrete is a technique that provides an opportunity to recycle tires, which are a major environmental concern and hazard. Civil Engineering sophomore Melissa Lesmeister, who is advised by Professsor Ashraf Ghaly, won first prize and $300 for her research to determine the effect of sunlight on the properties of this product. Presentations by Civil Engineering Professors Ghaly and Tom Jewell were well received their peers.
The keynote speaker was Dr Henry Petroski from Duke University who is probably the most influential engineering writer in the United States. He has authored many books including “Pencil” and most recently “Paperboy” which was favorably reviewed in the April 14 New York Times. He has written separate articles about Union College's Dr Charles Steinmetz's contributions as an engineer and his effectiveness as a writer. Dr Petroski conveyed his familiarity and regrets about what is happening with Civil Engineering at Union College.
In the category of active citizenship, the local World Federalists and United Nations supporters held their annual meeting last Monday to address the issues related to achieving a fair and peaceful world. Civil Engineering Professor Mohammad Mafi was notable for his participation.
The Albany Times Union on May 1 again featured the unique contributions of Civil Engineering Chair Andy Wolfe and his wife Lisa. This time the topic was the cooking class they offer to Union students. They have previously hosted the entire hockey team for Thanksgiving Dinner. While dinner at the Wolves is a memorable culinary and social experience, Andy and Lisa understand that teaching students to cook and develop recipes is an even more important to the quality of life of the students and can add richness to their of lives after Union.
Last weekend I observed that the Civil Engineering Department's idea of a picnic. It is to construct a picnic ground for the community and for travelers from around the world at a long abandoned but well preserved lock on the historic Erie Canal. This project is a continuation of the research and vision of Professor Wolfe who helped spear head the highly acclaimed Erie Canal Exhibit in the Nott Memorial. He had Union students advising high school students in model building of locks and bridges. Last spring they constructed a gate keeper's shanty. Last Saturday Civil Engineers and faculty were on site with heavy machinery and hand tools. Civil Engineering student Beth Brogan was clearing rocks and stumps with a backhoe while Professor Phil Snow was operating a bulldozer.
The stated reason for eliminating Civil Engineering has been to convert resources to exciting new possibilities such as Nanotechnology, which is rapidly being converted from a topic of serious scientific research to a buzz word for charlatans. “Beware of Valley's New Fad: Nanontechnology” is an article in the May 6, 2002 Wall Street Journal. It is recommended reading for all concerned about the hyped alternatives to Civil Engineering.
Dr Stanley Williams of Hewlett Packard is a long time researcher and a principal author of the “U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative in 2000.” He sees the dangers of over hyping. He believes that many venture capitalists want to make nanotechnology shell companies and then take the money and run before anyone figures out that there is nothing there.
Civil Engineering has been a source of pride and excellence at Union College since 1845. The department is and will remain intact for another three years. As a faculty member and as an alumnus of Union College I remain hopeful that the Trustees reconsider the elimination of Civil Engineering, rather than sadly discovering the hyped alternatives turn out to be smoke and mirrors.
Professor Frank Wicks, Mechanical Engineering
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 30, 2002)
I had hoped that the school improved ethically since the removal of CE. However, I am sorry to report that my hope was unfounded. Recently I found myself outside Dean Balmer's door. There I found several pamphlets and magazines on engineering, which I have since read carefully. Nowhere on any of the pamphlets is it mentioned that Union College will not maintain a degree in Civil Engineering for incoming freshmen. In fact, a sheet describing the engineering majors at Union says specifically: “Union offers majors leading to accredited bachelor of science degrees in Civil Engineering, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering.” Wait! Backup! Union offers a degree in Civil Engineering? Now I am confused. Well, it could be possible that Union doesn't have the money to print new materials mentioning the change in the Engineering Division. However, I also found 3 pamphlets printed after the new Converging Technology initiative and the removal of the Civil Engineering department was announced. Although it is not necessary to mention the elimination of Civil Engineering on all information from the school, I feel that since CE is an established department, something should at least be mentioned in the engineering updates printed after the trustee vote. A prospective student to Union will see only that literature mentioning engineering majors lists Civil Engineering as an option. Also, that student will likely notice that there is a building devoted to Civil Engineering and that engineering newsletters often mention awards received by Civil Engineering faculty and students. The lack of information on the elimination of CE, while not technically lying, is misleading. It only seems reasonable that a pamphlet titled “An engineering update at Union” would at least once have mentioned the tragic loss of an engineering department. For example, a question asked in the literature says, “How will converging technologies affect the current engineering programs?” Since a partial reason for the elimination of CE is to provide faculty to teach class in nanotechnlogies and the like, here there is the perfect opportunity to mention the sacrifice of a historic program for converging technologies. But alas, nowhere in the pamphlet's response is the loss of Civil Engineering discussed. In fact, the longwinded answer concludes with “our president has stated in no uncertain terms that first-rate engineering programs will remain at Union.” After seeing this response a prospective student would not think to ask the tough questions like “Are all the engineering programs still intact?” and “Are the other engineering programs threatened?” These questions are in dire need of being answered. Although a student may choose an engineering major that is not Civil Engineering, the loss of this major shows the ease in which any major can be removed. Perspective students in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering disciplines should be told before entering this school about the instability of the engineering division. The shocking lack of information appears to be unethical and borderline corrupt. An academic institution should not be allowed to mislead prospective students like this. New information should be released to replace the old descriptions of engineering at Union College. Since the old information was merely printed on paper and was clearly an in-house job, it should not be too expensive to replace the literature. Although it is too late for the incoming freshmen, my hope is that this new information will be released before applications for next year begin coming into admissions.
Andrea Hudak `03
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (October 3, 2002)
Concealing Contempt
In last week’s issue of the Concordy, an alumnus wrote to describe his disgust over the protest during graduation, a protest regarding the elimination of the distinguished Civil Engineering program and the backhanded methods used by the administration to excuse and hide this unnecessary action. To protest the elimination, some students rose and turned their backs to President Hull during his commencement speech. The protesters never said a word, but merely stood. The demonstration was not disruptive; President Hull’s speech went smoothly and without a hitch. However, although President Hull was both easily heard and seen by all in attendance, at least by the ones lucky enough to see the podium before the demonstration, the disgusted alum found the protest to be the mark of “fools who perhaps need a bit more formal education before they can be considered mature and responsible members of society.” He also found himself embarrassed for both his own sake and the sake of his parents. Here, I must object. I was then, and am now, proud of those who rose during graduation. I consider myself extraordinarily lucky to be friends with many of those who stood. These are people who believe in something, even if it is that an injustice has been done at this school. They opened themselves up for criticism, realizing that their parents, their friends and certainly their school administration might not support them. Yet, in response to this they still stood. I do not consider them immature fools, nor do I find them irresponsible. Perhaps, these students were the most responsible of those at the graduation. They understood that they, as well as the administration, are responsible for the fate of their school. These are the same students that attended “Save Civil” rallies and passed around petitions. They are also the same students that attended informational meeting after informational meeting and met with Hull and the appropriate deans, even though they found their every effort thwarted and their pleas ignored. As one protester said following graduation, “He turned his back on us, we turned our backs on him.” By remaining seated during Hull’s speech a person thus accepts his doctrine and chokes down the hard medicine that our school is not on the right track, which can be shown in actual numbers through the poor activity of the school’s endowment and the dramatic drop in our U.S. Weekly World and News Report ratings. Those who stood wished for others to acknowledge the fact that something must be done when a person’s school is being abused and destroyed. These people witnessed Union undergo a severe transformation in only the few short years they attended the school, and they did not like the changes and would not take it sitting down. They should be respected for standing up for their beliefs and their school. I hope that their message wasn’t lost because of a few shortsighted individuals who believe that the sanctity of the graduation ceremony should be fully observed, regardless of its hypocrisy.
In regard to the protest itself, which included the protesters turning their backs to President Hull, an analogy might be made. I once heard a joke in which a defendant in a courtroom turned his chair so as to face the back of the courtroom during proceedings. The judge immediately yells, “Son, are you showing contempt for this court?” To which the defendant replies, “No Your Honor, I am attempting to conceal it.”
Andrea Hudak '03
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (October 10, 2002)
I Have A Dream
I will always remember 2001 as one of the darkest years of my life. Two events happened within one month of each other that shattered two of my biggest dreams. The first event happened on September 11, and it shattered my dream of living in peace in my adopted country. The second event happened on October 12, and it shattered my dream of a place where democracy rules and the opinion of the majority prevails. October 12, 2001 was the day when 11 Union College trustees voted to eliminate the Civil Engineering Department. My world turned up-side-down when nonsense triumphed over logic. I could not believe that 11 of 27 trustees, ignored the voice of the alumni, students, faculty, parents, community, and most of all the voice of reason, and adopted the administration's plan to eliminate the Civil Engineering Department. Also, I could not believe that 9 of the 27 trustees, the ultimate guardians of the treasures of this institution, did not even vote on this life or death issue for the department. It is not my nature to sit and cry over losses, however, I only wished to write an account of some of the events that took place over the year since the decision to eliminate the department was made. I strongly believe that history will prove that this decision was a mistake. Unfortunately history takes a long time to pass judgment, but it will definitely pass it.
I would like to outline the following reasons as to why the trustees should reconsider their decision. These reasons are not the product of my imagination. They are facts that cannot be denied.
1. One of the six solutions the Resource Allocation Subcouncil (RASC) report outlined was to increase the student population by 6 students. Although this solution was vehemently rejected by the administration and was labeled as detrimental to the health of the college, immediately after the decision was made to eliminate the department, the administration decided to increase the student population by at least twice as much as the RASC report suggested. Following this sequence of events one can easily conclude that there was no honest attempt on the part of the administration to find a solution to the perceived problem. The fate of the department was simply railroaded to the execution chamber where the administration wanted it to go from the beginning. The lack of good faith in this process should provide the trustees with a convincing reason to re-institute the department.
2. One of the reasons the administration gave for the need to eliminate the department was the lack of resources. The president stated, "no one is questioning the importance of civil engineering as a discipline. The question is whether Union can be all things to all people. College campuses always engage in a kind of one-plus-one math. They only know addition, they do not know subtraction. With the exception of Geology in the 1960s, no program has been cut from this institution". A short time after the decision to subtract the department was made, the administration requested input from the campus community on areas of study that people wanted to add to the curriculum. First, adding programs defeats the reason stated to subtract others when the goal was to subtract because Union cannot be all things to all people. Second, the administration itself admitted that civil engineering is a vital area which is relevant to our academic program, hence it makes sense to reconsider the decision to eliminate the department especially since the only example of a program that was cut is invalid because that program was added again later. The president himself took pride in his recent letter to the Union College community stating that Geology is ranked 4th nationally. Civil Engineering was ranked 8th nationally. Why not take pride in that and preserve the department? Again, if the administration is keen on enhancing the curriculum, then the board should see these conflicting stances as a sign that the case made against the department is baseless. This constitutes grounds to re-institute the department because its importance is unquestionable.
3. Whether or not converging technology is one of the reasons the department has been eliminated, it is no secret that the logical and natural link between the liberal arts and engineering is through civil engineering. Those who like to deny it can do so as much as they wish, but in the end of the debate people will continue to need civil engineering for this nation's infrastructure, for the quality of the environment in which we live, for the air we breathe, for the water we drink, and for the preservation of resources for next generations. These are areas where civil engineers make their contribution and shine.
4. The administration takes a lot of pride in its effort to revitalize the neighborhood of the college. It is also engaged in high profile activities to promote many projects in Schenectady, all of which have major civil engineering components. It seems schizophrenic when the administration promotes civil engineering projects outside of Union College, and eliminates the Civil Engineering Department at the college. The board of trustees acknowledged the importance of revitalizing the college's neighborhood when they agreed to draw money from the endowment to achieve this goal. Is the Civil Engineering Department less important than the streets surrounding the college? If yes, then why the board is allowing all this money to be spent on civil engineering projects outside the college. If no, then I believe that the board should put its money where its mouth is and re-institute the department.
5. Soon the State of New York will follow the lead of 9 other states in requiring engineers to earn continuing education units to maintain their professional registration. This is an untapped source of income the Civil Engineering Department can easily realize for the college. According to a recent article in the Concordiensis, this income can far exceed the cost associated with running the department.
6. I am convinced that the 5 trustees who voted against eliminating the department, the 2 trustees who abstained from voting, and the 9 trustees who were not present, did not want to see the department eliminated. Had these 16 trustees wanted to vote to eliminate, they would have done so with no hesitation to please the administration. For the sake of democracy, and for the sake of the hundreds who signed petitions and voiced their opinions to preserve the department, I plead with these 16 trustees to make their voices heard by asking the entire board to reconsider the elimination decision. These 16 trustees owe it to themselves, to Union College, to the community, and to the democracy that constitutes the foundation of this country.
I pray that these 16 trustees will listen to my plea. You have taken the first step when you chose not to vote to eliminate the department. Please resurrect the issue and remember that you are the majority and are backed by the vast majority of "we the people". And to the 11 trustees who voted to eliminate the department, I pray that you search your souls in light of the events that happened after the decision was made. I pray that my plea will touch your consciences. I pray that my plea will strike a passionate chord in your hearts. I hope you will change your hearts and your minds too. A change of heart and mind is more honorable than reaffirming the mistake. I do not have an atom of doubt that all the trustees know in their hearts that the Civil Engineering Department has a strong case. I have a dream that this compelling case will not be ignored any longer. I am optimistic by nature, and I will continue to believe that the trustees will not allow injustice to triumph. The legacy of this board can still be re-written. Please affirm your commitment to sensibility and democracy.
Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 5, 2005)
Taking Pride in Eliminating the Civil Engineering Department
I have been reading with interest all the articles and the interviews about Roger Hull's Legacy as president of Union College. It is commendable that all the publications I read make an effort to detail almost everything that the president did during his tenure. I say almost, because in none of the articles did I find any mention of the elimination of the Civil Engineering Department as one of his accomplishments. I wonder why. Wasn't it an accomplishment that the president fought very hard to achieve? Wasn't it an accomplishment that the president fought for against the will of the alumni, faculty, students, parents, and the community? Wasn't it an accomplishment that the president ignored the faculty vote for? Wasn't it an accomplishment that the president believed would change the face of Union College? The answer to all of these questions is yes. So, why is it that this accomplishment is not being reported? Maybe because it did not produce the promised results. Maybe because it is not a source of pride. Or, maybe because it is not an accomplishment at all.
It is amusing to see in the list of accomplishments projects such as construction of new buildings, construction of new sport facilities, construction of performing arts facilities, renovation of existing buildings, revitalization of many houses in the neighborhood of the College, and revitalization of the downtown of Schenectady, which included a huge amount of construction. I say amusing because in all these great accomplishments, civil engineering was the most prominent feature. None of these accomplishments would have been possible without civil engineers. To take pride in all these accomplishments with these major civil engineering features, and eliminate the Civil Engineering Department that graduates these engineers is nothing short of schezophranic. I am certainly happy with all these new projects. It is a testimony to the contribution civil engineers make everyday and the society's reliance on them for its progress. I am greatly proud of my soon-to-decease Department, with its national status before it was eliminated in 2001. I am extremely proud of our graduates and the wonderful contributions they make to improve the quality of life. These should be sources of enormous pride for every member of the Union College community.
I certainly take a lot of pride in everything I do because I pour my heart and soul into my work. I also regret the things that I do wrong, I admit my mistakes, and I make a sincere effort to correct them. I am optimistic by nature, and will continue to live on the hope that, one day, Union will correct this blight on its history that no one wants to take pride in.
Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Letter to the Editor (May 26, 2005)
It's Time to Come Clean About Civil Engineering
Three weeks ago I published an article in the Concordiensis in which I asked how the president could take pride in over 20 construction projects with major civil engineering features, but still eliminate the Civil Engineering (CE) Department that graduates the engineers that make such projects possible. To my amazement, and amusement, it was announced in the same issue that the president had been selected to be the commencement speaker because of a number of reasons, but the most prominent one was the credit for presiding over 20 construction projects during his tenure. And, again, there was no mention of the elimination of the CE Department as one of his accomplishments. Is it really that shameful?
The Concordiensis announced in its first page that the students were "less than impressed with commencement speaker". I personally had neither positive nor negative feeling about it. I thought of the whole thing from a different angle. I thought this was a good, and probably the last, platform the president would have to come clean about decisions that were less than popular during his tenure. The one decision that proved to lack the support of the vast majority of diverse constituencies was what he presented as a "proposal" to eliminate CE. The first reason that was given as to why CE must go was, believe it or not, to strengthen engineering. This changed to a second reason, which was because engineering had many adjuncts. Then came the third reason, which was re-allocation of resources. Then, with one more change came the fourth reason, which was to adopt a new curricular vision. The reason kept changing and the focus kept shifting because these explanations were basically nonsense that no one could buy. Expert teams were hired from California to support the elimination "proposal", and they did, but they also acknowledged that they were unqualified to make such a determination, apparently to avoid liability. This unqualified support was glorified and used by the administration as evidence of the correctness of its vision.
The CE Department Secretary recently indicated that she had received 32 phone calls since January 2004 asking for information about the CE program. Sadly, these people were told that Union eliminated the CE Department. Their shock was multiplied by the lack of an answer to their invevitable "why" question. I am also dying to know why. Like it or not, CE has served humanity well, and will be around as long as there is life on planet earth. To my knowledge, it will not be any time soon that people will not need clean water, clean air, waste disposal, houses, roads, bridges, infrastructure, etc. Think about it. Unlike many other professions, CE is woven in the fabric of life itself.
I believe that the president, as our chief ethical officer, would serve Union well if he were to come clean and reveal to us the wisdom behind the decision that he made and fought for very hard against the will of almost everyone else. I am extremely interested in knowing why he was preaching about preserving and adding while actively practicing dismantling and deleting. We deserve to know why he was so willing to violate the rules in place and to suspend due process to achieve his goal. I would greatly appreciate it if he would tell us why adding 4 or 6 students to Union's population, to save CE, was totally unacceptable, while as much as 10 times this suggested increase was actually added after the elimination decision was made. I want to know why immediately after the elimination decision was made; the administration issued a call for proposals to establish new programs. Was CE irrelevant? The president himself indicated in a number of occasions that he believed that CE was an important discipline that touches people in their daily lives, and that it was important to the future of this nation. If this is the case, why then eliminate it? What kind of logic is that? How can any one rationalize this way of thinking? I would love to hear the president's own assessment of this decision four years after it had been made and how it served the interest of Union College.
I am really sincere in my queries. I honestly want to know the true answers to these questions. Not only did the answers we were given in the past make no sense to me, but they also did not make sense to anyone else. We, the Union College community, deserve explanation and justification. If no comprehensible explanation or justification can be given, then I believe we deserve an apology and the reinstitution of our beloved Civil Engineering Department.
Professor Ashraf Ghaly, Civil Engineering Department
|
Click HERE to submit your article to Opinions Editor of Concordiensis |
Civil Engineering Department Historical Homepage
